Advertisement

Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Planning

(But Were Afraid to Ask)
  • Jörg Hoffmann
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7006)

Abstract

Domain-independent planning is one of the long-standing sub-areas of Artificial Intelligence (AI), aiming at approaching human problem-solving flexibility. The area has long had an affinity towards playful illustrative examples, imprinting it on the mind of many a student as an area concerned with the rearrangement of blocks, and with the order in which to put on socks and shoes (not to mention the disposal of bombs in toilets). Working on the assumption that this “student” is you – the readers in earlier stages of their careers – I herein aim to answer three questions that you surely desired to ask back then already: What is it good for? Does it work? Is it interesting to do research in? Answering the latter two questions in the affirmative (of course!), I outline some of the major developments of the last decade, revolutionizing the ability of planning to scale up, and the understanding of the enabling technology. Answering the first question, I point out that modern planning proves to be quite useful for solving practical problems - including, perhaps, yours.

Keywords

Heuristic Search Planning Domain Planning Task Heuristic Function Intelligence Research 
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.
    Blum, A.L., Furst, M.L.: Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90(1-2), 279–298 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Planning as heuristic search. Artificial Intelligence 129(1–2), 5–33 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Heuristics for planning with penalties and rewards formulated in logic and computed through circuits. Artificial Intelligence 172(12-13), 1579–1604 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonet, B., Helmert, M.: Strengthening landmark heuristics via hitting sets. In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonet, B., Loerincs, G., Geffner, H.: A robust and fast action selection mechanism for planning. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bylander, T.: The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence 69(1–2), 165–204 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castillo, L.A., Morales, L., González-Ferrer, A., Fernández-Olivares, J., Borrajo, D., Onaindia, E.: Automatic generation of temporal planning domains for e-learning problems. Journal of Scheduling 13(4), 347–362 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cresswell, S., McCluskey, T.L., West, M.M.: Acquisition of object-centred domain models from planning examples. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edelkamp, S.: Planning with pattern databases. In: Recent Advances in AI Planning. 6th European Conference on Planning (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2.1: An extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61–124 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerevini, A., Saetti, A., Serina, I.: Planning through stochastic local search and temporal action graphs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 239–290 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haslum, P., Geffner, H.: Admissible heuristics for optimal planning. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoffmann, J.: Where ignoring delete lists works, part II: Causal graphs. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffmann, J.: Local search topology in planning benchmarks: An empirical analysis. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffmann, J.: Local search topology in planning benchmarks: A theoretical analysis. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffmann, J.: The Metric-FF planning system: Translating “ignoring delete lists” to numeric state variables. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 291–341 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoffmann, J.: Utilizing Problem Structure in Planning: A Local Search Approach. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2854. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffmann, J.: Where ‘ignoring delete lists’ works: Local search topology in planning benchmarks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24, 685–758 (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoffmann, J.: Analyzing search topology without running any search: On the connection between causal graphs and h  + . Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 41, 155–229 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoffmann, J., Nebel, B.: The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14, 253–302 (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hoffmann, J., Weber, I., Kraft, F.M.: SAP speaks PDDL. In: Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karpas, E., Domshlak, C.: Cost-optimal planning with landmarks. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2009)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katz, M., Domshlak, C.: Optimal additive composition of abstraction-based admissible heuristics. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koller, A., Hoffmann, J.: Waking up a sleeping rabbit: On natural-language sentence generation with FF. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koller, A., Petrick, R.: Experiences with planning for natural language generation. Computational Intelligence 27(1), 23–40 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lucangeli, J., Sarraute, C., Richarte, G.: Attack planning in the real world. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Intelligent Security (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McDermott, D.: A heuristic estimator for means-ends analysis in planning. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (1996)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McDermott, D., et al.: The PDDL Planning Domain Definition Language. In: The AIPS 1998 Planning Competition Committee (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Richter, S., Helmert, M.: Preferred operators and deferred evaluation in satisficing planning. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Rintanen, J.: Heuristics for planning with SAT. In: Cohen, D. (ed.) CP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6308, pp. 414–428. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rintanen, J., Heljanko, K., Niemelä, I.: Planning as satisfiability: parallel plans and algorithms for plan search. Artificial Intelligence 170(12-13), 1031–1080 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruml, W., Do, M.B., Zhou, R., Fromherz, M.P.J.: On-line planning and scheduling: An application to controlling modular printers. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 415–468 (2011)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Simpson, R.M., Kitchin, D.E., McCluskey, T.L.: Planning domain definition using GIPO. Knowledge Engineering Review 22(2), 117–134 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thayer, J., Ruml, W.: Bounded suboptimal search: A direct approach using inadmissible estimates. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2011)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vaquero, T.S., Romero, V., Tonidandel, F., Silva, J.R.: itSIMPLE 2.0: an integrated tool for designing planning domains. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Hoffmann
    • 1
  1. 1.INRIANancyFrance

Personalised recommendations