Advertisement

Translating Single-Player GDL into PDDL

  • Thorsten Rauber
  • Peter Kissmann
  • Jörg Hoffmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8077)

Abstract

In the single-agent case general game playing and action planning are two related topics, so that one might hope to use the established planners to improve the handling of general single-player games. However, both come with their own description language, GDL and PDDL, respectively. In this paper we propose a way to translate single-player games described in GDL to PDDL planning tasks and provide an evaluation on a wide range of single-player games, comparing the efficiency of grounding and solving the games in the translated and in the original format.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Björnsson, Y., Finnsson, H.: Cadiaplayer: A simulation-based general game player. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 1(1), 4–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edelkamp, S., Hoffmann, J.: PDDL2.2: The language for the classical part of the 4th international planning competition. Tech. Rep. 195, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Institut für Informatik, Freiburg, Germany (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Genesereth, M.R., Love, N., Pell, B.: General game playing: Overview of the AAAI competition. AI Magazine 26(2), 62–72 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haufe, S., Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: Automated verification of state sequence invariants in general game playing. Artificial Intelligence 187, 1–30 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Helmert, M.: The Fast Downward planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 26, 191–246 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffmann, J.: FF: The fast-forward planning system. The AI Magazine 22(3), 57–62 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kissmann, P., Edelkamp, S.: Gamer, a general game playing agent. KI 25(1), 49–52 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kocsis, L., Szepesvári, C.: Bandit based Monte-Carlo planning. In: Fürnkranz, J., Scheffer, T., Spiliopoulou, M. (eds.) ECML 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4212, pp. 282–293. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Love, N.C., Hinrichs, T.L., Genesereth, M.R.: General game playing: Game description language specification. Tech. Rep. LG-2006-01, Stanford Logic Group (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McDermott, D., et al.: The PDDL Planning Domain Definition Language. The AIPS 1998 Planning Competition Comitee (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Méhat, J., Cazenave, T.: A parallel general game player. KI 25(1), 43–47 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rauber, T.: Translating Single-Player GDL into PDDL. Bachelor’s thesis, Department of Computer Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Technology I, Saarland University (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richter, S., Westphal, M.: The LAMA planner: Guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 39, 127–177 (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rüdiger, C.: Use of existing planners to solve single-player games. Großer Beleg, Fakultät Informatik, Technische Universität Dresden (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sievers, S.: Erweiterung eines Planungssystems zum Lösen von Ein-Personen-Spielen. Bachelor’s thesis, Arbeitsgruppe Grundlagen der künstlichen Intelligenz, Institut für Informatik, Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thiebaux, S., Hoffmann, J., Nebel, B.: In defense of PDDL axioms. Artificial Intelligence 168(1-2), 38–69 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thorsten Rauber
    • 1
  • Peter Kissmann
    • 1
  • Jörg Hoffmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations