Advertisement

Block-Structured Plan Deordering

  • Fazlul Hasan Siddiqui
  • Patrik Haslum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7691)

Abstract

Partially ordered plans have several useful properties, such as exhibiting the structure of the plan more clearly which facilitates post-plan generation tasks like scheduling the plan, explaining it to a user, or breaking it into subplans for distributed execution. The standard interpretation of partial ordering implies that whenever two subplans are unordered, every interleaving of steps from the two forms a valid execution. This restricts deordering to cases where individual steps (i.e., actions) are independent. We propose a weaker notion of partial ordering that divides the plan into blocks, such that the steps in a block may not be interleaved with steps outside the block, but unordered blocks can be executed in any sequence. We present an algorithm to find such deorderable blocks, and show that it enables deordering plans in many cases where no deordering is possible under the standard interpretation.

Keywords

Causal Link Responsible Step Original Plan Sequential Plan Standard Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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 AI Research 9, 99–137 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Policella, N., Smith, S., Cesta, A., Oddi, A.: Generating robust schedules through temporal flexibility. In: Proc. 14th International Conference on Automated Planning & Scheduling (ICAPS 2004), pp. 209–218 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cox, J., Durfee, E., Bartold, T.: A distributed framework for solving the multiagent plan coordination problem. In: Proc. 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 821–827 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chrpa, L., McCluskey, T., Osborne, H.: Optimizing plans through analysis of action dependencies and independencies. In: Proc. 22nd International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (2004) ISBN: 1-55860-856-7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chapman, D.: Planning for conjunctive goals. Artificial Intelligence 32, 333–377 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McAllester, D., Rosenblitt, D.: Systematic nonlinear planning. In: Proc. 9th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pednault, E.: Formulating multiagent, dynamic-world problems in the classical planning framework. In: Reasoning about Actions and Plans (1986)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Regnier, P., Fade, B.: Complete Determination of Parallel Actions and Temporal Optimization in Linear Plans of Action. In: Hertzberg, J. (ed.) EWSP 1991. LNCS, vol. 522, pp. 100–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Veloso, M.M., Pérez, M.A., Carbonell, J.G.: Nonlinear planning with parallel resource allocation. In: Workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, pp. 207–212. Morgan Kaufmann (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kambhampati, S., Kedar, S.: A unified framework for explanation-based generalization of partially ordered and partially instantiated plans. Artificial Intelligence 67(1), 29–70 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winner, E., Veloso, M.: Analyzing plans with conditional effects. In: Proc. 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS 2002), pp. 23–33 (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muise, C., McIlratih, S., Beck, J.: Optimally relaxing partial-order plans with MaxSAT. In: Proc. 22nd International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2012 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chrpa, L., Barták, R.: Towards getting domain knowledge: Plans analysis through investigation of actions dependencies. In: Proc. 21st International Florida AI Research Society Conference (FLAIRS 2008), pp. 531–536. AAAI Press (2008) ISBN 978-1-57735-365-2Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haslum, P., Jonsson, P.: Planning with reduced operator sets. In: Proc. 5:th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS 2000), pp. 150–158 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen, X., Kambhampati, S.: Reviving partial order planning. In: Proc. 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2001 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fazlul Hasan Siddiqui
    • 1
  • Patrik Haslum
    • 1
  1. 1.The Australian National University & NICTA Optimisation Research GroupCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations