Revisiting Constraint Models for Planning Problems

  • Roman Barták
  • Daniel Toropila
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5722)

Abstract

Planning problems deal with finding a sequence of actions that transfer the initial state of the world into a desired state. Frequently such problems are solved by dedicated algorithms but there exist planners based on translating the planning problem into a different formalism such as constraint satisfaction or Boolean satisfiability and using a general solver for this formalism. The paper describes how to enhance existing constraint models of planning problems by using techniques such as symmetry breaking (dominance rules), singleton consistency, nogoods, and lifting.

Keywords

Planning constraint models symmetry breaking lifting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barták, R., Toropila, D.: Reformulating Constraint Models for Classical Planning. In: 21st International Florida AI Research Society Conference (FLAIRS 2008), pp. 525–530. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barták, R., Toropila, D.: Enhancing Constraint Models for Planning Problems. In: Návrat, P., Chudá, D. (eds.) Znalosti 2009, pp. 47–58. Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej technickej univerzity (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lopez, A., Bacchus, F.: Generalizing GraphPlan by Formulating Planning as a CSP. In: 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 954–960. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1992), pp. 359–363 (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bäckström, C., Nebel, B.: Complexity results for SAS+ planning. Computational Intelligence 11(4), 625–655 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Helmert, M.: The Fast Downward Planning System. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 26, 191–246 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundation for Specifying and Implementing Dynamic Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Long, D., Fox, M.: Plan Permutation Symmetries as a Source of Planner Inefficiency. In: 22nd Workshop of UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group, PlanSIG-22 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blum, A., Furst, M.: Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90, 281–300 (1997)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vidal, V., Geffner, H.: Branching and Pruning: An Optimal Temporal POCL Planner based on Constraint Programming. In: 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2004), pp. 570–577 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Debruyne, R., Bessière, C.: Some Practicable Filtering Techniques for the Constraint Satisfaction Problem. In: 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 412–417. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roman Barták
    • 1
  • Daniel Toropila
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Mathematics and PhysicsCharles UniversityPraha 1Czech Republic
  2. 2.Computer Science CenterCharles UniversityPraha 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations