Advertisement

An Empirical Study of the Usefulness of State-Dependent Action Costs in Planning

  • Sumitra Corraya
  • Florian Geißer
  • David Speck
  • Robert MattmüllerEmail author
Conference paper
  • 253 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11793)

Abstract

The vast majority of work in planning to date has focused on state-independent action costs. However, if a planning task features state-dependent costs, using a cost model with state-independent costs means either introducing a modeling error, or potentially sacrificing compactness of the model. In this paper, we investigate the conflicting priorities of modeling accuracy and compactness empirically, with a particular focus on the extent of the negative impact of reduced modeling accuracy on (a) the quality of the resulting plans, and (b) the search guidance provided by heuristics that are fed with inaccurate cost models. Our empirical results show that the plan suboptimality introduced by ignoring state-dependent costs can range, depending on the domain, from inexistent to several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, our results show that the impact on heuristic guidance additionally depends strongly on the heuristic that is used, the specifics of how exactly the costs are represented, and whether one is interested in heuristic accuracy, node expansions, or overall runtime savings.

Keywords

Planning State-dependent costs Heuristic accuracy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

David Speck was supported by the German National Science Foundation (DFG) as part of the project EPSDAC (MA 7790/1-1). Florian Geißer was supported by ARC project DP180103446, “On-line planning for constrained autonomous agents in an uncertain world”.

References

  1. 1.
    Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Planning as heuristic search: new results. In: Biundo, S., Fox, M. (eds.) ECP 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1809, pp. 360–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/10720246_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ciardo, G., Siminiceanu, R.: Using edge-valued decision diagrams for symbolic generation of shortest paths. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design (FMCAD), pp. 256–273 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fan, G., Müller, M., Holte, R.: Additive merge-and-shrink heuristics for diverse action costs. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 4287–4293 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fan, G., Müller, M., Holte, R.: The two-edged nature of diverse action costs. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 98–106 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Geffner, H., Bonet, B.: A Concise Introduction to Models and Methods for Automated Planning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, San Rafael (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geißer, F.: On planning with state-dependent action costs. Ph.D. dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geißer, F., Keller, T., Mattmüller, R.: Delete relaxations for planning with state-dependent action costs. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1573–1579 (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Geißer, F., Keller, T., Mattmüller, R.: Abstractions for planning with state-dependent action costs. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 140–148 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haslum, P., Botea, A., Helmert, M., Bonet, B., Koenig, S.: Domain-independent construction of pattern database heuristics for cost-optimal planning. In: Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1007–1012 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helmert, M.: The fast downward planning system. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 26, 191–246 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helmert, M., Domshlak, C.: Landmarks, critical paths and abstractions: what’s the difference anyway? In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helmert, M., Haslum, P., Hoffmann, J.: Flexible abstraction heuristics for optimal sequential planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 176–183 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helmert, M., Röger, G.: How good is almost perfect? In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), pp. 944–949 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ivankovic, F., Haslum, P., Gordon, D.: Planning with global state constraints and state-dependent action costs. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) (2019)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keller, T., Pommerening, F., Seipp, J., Geißer, F., Mattmüller, R.: State-dependent cost partitionings for Cartesian abstractions in classical planning. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 3161–3169 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearl, J.: Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston (1984)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Speck, D., Geißer, F., Mattmüller, R.: Symbolic planning with edge-valued multi-valued decision diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 250–258 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Speck, D., Geißer, F., Mattmüller, R.: SYMPLE: symbolic planning based on EVMDDs. In: Ninth International Planning Competition (IPC-9): Planner Abstracts, pp. 91–94 (2018)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FreiburgFreiburg im BreisgauGermany
  2. 2.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations