Generalizing and Executing Plans

  • Christian Muise
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7310)

Abstract

Our work addresses the problem of generalizing a plan and representing it for efficient execution. A key area of automated planning is the study of how to generate a plan for an agent to execute. The plan itself may take on many forms: a sequence of actions, a partial ordering over a set of actions, or a procedure-like description of what the agent should do. Once a plan is found, the question remains as to how the agent should execute the plan. For simple forms of representation (e.g., a sequence of actions), the answer to this question is straightforward. However, when the plan representation is more expressive (e.g., a GOLOG program [4]), or the agent is acting in an uncertain world, execution can be considerably more challenging. We focus on the problem of how to generalize various plan representations into a form that an agent can use for efficient and robust online execution.

Srivistava et al. propose a definition of a generalized plan as an algorithm that maps problem instances to a sequence of actions that solves the instance [7]. Our work fits nicely into this formalism, and in Section 3 we describe how a problem (i.e., a state of the world and goal) is mapped to a sequence of actions (i.e., what the agent should do).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bäckström, C.: Computational aspects of reordering plans. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 9(1), 99–137 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Erol, K., Hendler, J., Nau, D.S.: Htn planning: Complexity and expressivity. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1123–1123 (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fritz, C., McIlraith, S.A.: Monitoring plan optimality during execution. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), September 22 - 26, pp. 144–151. Providence, Rhode Island (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.: GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. The Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 59–83 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Muise, C., McIlraith, S.A., Beck, J.C.: Monitoring the execution of partial-order plans via regression. In: International Joint Conference On Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muise, C., Mcilraith, S.A., Beck, J.C.: Optimization of partial-order plans via maxsat. In: COPLAS (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Srivastava, S., Immerman, N., Zilberstein, S.: Challenges in finding generalized plans. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Generalized Planning: Macros, Loops, Domain Control (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Muise
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations