Context dependent effects in temporal planning

  • Patrick Albers
  • Malik Ghallab
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1348)


A major problem in planning, as in most Al domains, is to find an adequate representation. In particular, there is the issue of which effects of an action should be specified unconditionally in its model and which can be stated conditionally with respect to the context. Indeed, most actions do have several different effects depending on the context in which they are executed.

In this paper, we propose an approach and different extensions in order to take into account context dependent effects into I)Off, a temporal planner. Expressiveness requires a great flexibility of representation, but it may lead to a computational cost not compatible with a practically efficient planner. The proposed approach offers a slight extension in representation which enables to express conditional subtasks. Furthermore, empirical results show that this approach and the corresponding implementation provide also some efficiency benefits with respect to a domain description that details all unconditional action models.


temporal planning actions with context dependent effects 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Chapman. Planning for Conjunctive goals. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, pages 333–377, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Collins & L. Pryor, Achieving the functionality of filter conditions in a partial order planner. AAAI 92.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.E.Fikes & N.J.Nilsson. STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, vol 2, pages 189–208, 1971.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Garcia & P. Laborie, Hierarchisation of the search space in temporal planning. 235–249, proceedings EWSP-95.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Ghallab & T. Vidal, Focusing on the sub-graph for managing efficiently numerical temporal constraints. In proceedings, FLAIRS-95.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Ghallab & H. Laruelle. Representation and control in IX T E T, a temporal planner. In proceedings AIPS-94, 61–67.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Kambhampati, C. Knoblock, Q. Yang. Planning as rafanement search; a unified framework for evualuting tradeoffs in partial order planning. Artifical Intelligence, 95, 167-238.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Laborie & M. Ghallab. Planning with sharable resource constraints. In proceedings IJCAI-95, 1643–1649Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. McAllester & D. Rosenblitt. Systematic nonlinear planning. In proceedings AAAI-91, pages 634–639, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.McDermot, regression planning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 6:357–416, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Pednault. Synthesizing plans that contains actions with context-dependent effects. Computational Intelligence, 4(4):356–372, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Pednault. Generalizing non-linear planning to handle complex goals and actions with context-dependents effects. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, july 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.S.Penberty & D. Weld. UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial planner order planner for ADL. Third International Conference of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 103–114, october 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. Weld An introduction to least-commitment planning. AI magazine, pages 27–61, Winter 1994Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D.E. Wilkins, Representation in a domain independent planner. IJCAI 83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Albers
    • 1
  • Malik Ghallab
    • 1
  1. 1.ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations