Skip to main content

Using Guidelines to Constrain Interactive Case-Based HTN Planning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development (ICCBR 1999)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1650))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

This paper describes HICAP, a general-purpose, interactive case-based plan authoring architecture that can be applied to decision support tasks to yield a hierarchical course of action. It integrates a hierarchical task editor with a conversational case-based planner. HICAP maintains both a task hierarchy representing guidelines that constrain the final plan and the hierarchical social organization responsible for these tasks. It also supports bookkeeping, which is crucial for real-world large-scale planning tasks. By selecting tasks corresponding to the hierarchy’s leaf nodes, users can activate the conversational case-based planner to interactively refine guideline tasks into a concrete plan. Thus, HICAP can be used to generate context sensitive plans and should be useful for assisting with planning complex tasks such as noncombatant evacuation operations. We describe an experiment with a highly detailed military simulator to investigate this claim. The results show that plans generated by HICAP were superior to those generated by alternative approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aha, D.W., & Breslow, L.A.(1997). Refining conversational case libraries. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on CBR (pp. 267–278). Providence, RI: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, R., Muñoz-Avila, H., Veloso, M., Melis, E. (1998). Case-based reasoning applied to planning tasks. In M. Lenz, B. Bartsch-Spoerl, H.-D. Burkhard, & S. Wess (Eds.) CBR Technology: From Foundations to Applications. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, R. & Wilke, W. (1995). Building and refining abstract planning cases by change of representation language. Journal of AI Research, 3, 53–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting, L.K., & Aha, D.W. (1995). Stratified case-based reasoning: Reusing hierarchical problem solving episodes. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on AI (pp. 384–390). Montreal, Canada: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breslow, L., & Aha, D.W. (1997). NaCoDAE: Navy Conversational Decision Aids Environment (TR AIC-97-018). Washington, DC: Naval Research Laboratory, Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrick, C., Yang, Q., Abi-Zeid, I., & Lamontagne, L. (1999). Activating CBR systems through autonomous information gathering. To appear in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning. Munich, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceranowicz, A. (1994). Modular Semi-Automated Forces. Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference of the ACM (pp. 755–761). New York, NY: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • DoD (1994). Joint tactics, techniques and procedures for noncombat evacuation operations (Joint Report 3-07.51, Second Draft). Washington, DC: Department of Defense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erol, K., Nau, D., & Hendler, J. (1994). HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1123–1128). Seattle, WA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fikes, R.E., & Nilsson, N.J. (1971). Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving in problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 189–208.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kambhampati, S. (1994). Exploiting causal structure to control retrieval and refitting during plan reuse. Computational Intelligence, 10,213–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, Kirk S. (1992). Noncombatant evacuation operations: Plan now or pay later (Technical Report). Newport, RI: Naval War College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S.W. (1997). A hybrid architecture for real-time mixed-initiative planning and control. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Innovative Applications of AI (pp. 1032–1037). Providence, RI: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Avila, H., Breslow, L.A., Aha, D.W., & Nau, D. (1998). Description and functionality of THE (TR AIC-98-022). Washington, DC: NRL, NCARAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz-Avila, H., Aha, D.W., Breslow, L. & Nau, D. (1999). HICAP: An interactive case-based planning architecture and its application to noncombatant evacuation operations. To appear in Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence. Orlando, FL: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nau, D.S., Cao, Y., Lotem, A., & Muñoz-Avila, H. (1999). SHOP: Simple Hierarchical Ordered Planner. To appear in Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Stockholm, Sweden: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racine, K., & Yang, Q. (1997). Maintaining unstructured case bases. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on CBR (pp. 553–564). Providence, RI: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachtleben, G.R. (1991). Operation Sharp Edge: The Corps MEU (SOC) program in action. Marine Corps Gazette, 11, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A.B. (1991). Eastern Exit: The noncombatant evacuation operation (NEO) from Mogadishu, Somalia, in January 1991 (TR CRM 91-221). Arlington, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A.B. (1995). Requirements for humanitarian assistance and peace operations: Insights from seven case studies (TR CRM 94-74). Arlington, VA: CNA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veloso, M., Mulvehill, A.M., & Cox, M.T. (1997). Rationale-supported mixedinitiative case-based planning. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1072–1077). Providence, RI: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, D.E. (1998). Using the SIPE-2 planning system: A manual for Version 5.0 (Working Document). Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research International, Artificial Intelligence Center.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Muñoz-Avila, H., McFarlane, D.C., Aha, D.W., Breslow, L., Ballas, ‡.A., Nau, D.S. (1999). Using Guidelines to Constrain Interactive Case-Based HTN Planning. In: Althoff, KD., Bergmann, R., Branting, L. (eds) Case-Based Reasoning Research and Development. ICCBR 1999. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1650. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48508-2_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48508-2_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-66237-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48508-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics