Results 1  10
of
226
Systematic Nonlinear Planning
 In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence
, 1991
"... This paper presents a simple, sound, complete, and systematic algorithm for domain independent STRIPS planning. Simplicity is achieved by starting with a ground procedure and then applying a general, and independently verifiable, lifting transformation. Previous planners have been designed directly ..."
Abstract

Cited by 440 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This paper presents a simple, sound, complete, and systematic algorithm for domain independent STRIPS planning. Simplicity is achieved by starting with a ground procedure and then applying a general, and independently verifiable, lifting transformation. Previous planners have been designed directly as lifted procedures. Our ground procedure is a ground version of Tate's NONLIN procedure. In Tate's procedure one is not required to determine whether a prerequisite of a step in an unfinished plan is guaranteed to hold in all linearizations. This allows Tate's procedure to avoid the use of Chapman's modal truth criterion. Systematicity is the property that the same plan, or partial plan, is never examined more than once. Systematicity is achieved through a simple modification of Tate's procedure.
The Computational Complexity of Propositional STRIPS Planning
 Artificial Intelligence
, 1994
"... I present several computational complexity results for propositional STRIPS planning, i.e., STRIPS planning restricted to ground formulas. Different planning problems can be defined by restricting the type of formulas, placing limits on the number of pre and postconditions, by restricting negation ..."
Abstract

Cited by 361 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
I present several computational complexity results for propositional STRIPS planning, i.e., STRIPS planning restricted to ground formulas. Different planning problems can be defined by restricting the type of formulas, placing limits on the number of pre and postconditions, by restricting negation in pre and postconditions, and by requiring optimal plans. For these types of restrictions, I show when planning is tractable (polynomial) and intractable (NPhard) . In general, it is PSPACEcomplete to determine if a given planning instance has any solutions. Extremely severe restrictions on both the operators and the formulas are required to guarantee polynomial time or even NPcompleteness. For example, when only ground literals are permitted, determining plan existence is PSPACEcomplete even if operators are limited to two preconditions and two postconditions. When definite Horn ground formulas are permitted, determining plan existence is PSPACEcomplete even if operators are limited t...
The Fast Downward planning system
 Journal of Artifical Intelligence Research
, 2006
"... Fast Downward is a classical planning system based on heuristic search. It can deal with general deterministic planning problems encoded in the propositional fragment of PDDL2.2, including advanced features like ADL conditions and effects and derived predicates (axioms). Like other wellknown planne ..."
Abstract

Cited by 345 (29 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Fast Downward is a classical planning system based on heuristic search. It can deal with general deterministic planning problems encoded in the propositional fragment of PDDL2.2, including advanced features like ADL conditions and effects and derived predicates (axioms). Like other wellknown planners such as HSP and FF, Fast Downward is a progression planner, searching the space of world states of a planning task in the forward direction. However, unlike other PDDL planning systems, Fast Downward does not use the propositional PDDL representation of a planning task directly. Instead, the input is first translated into an alternative representation called multivalued planning tasks, which makes many of the implicit constraints of a propositional planning task explicit. Exploiting this alternative representation, Fast Downward uses hierarchical decompositions of planning tasks for computing its heuristic function, called the causal graph heuristic, which is very different from traditional HSPlike heuristics based on ignoring negative interactions of operators. In this article, we give a full account of Fast Downward’s approach to solving multivalued planning tasks. We extend our earlier discussion of the causal graph heuristic to tasks involving
RoboCup: The Robot World Cup Initiative
, 1995
"... The Robot World Cup Initiative (RoboCup) is an attempt to foster AI and intelligent robotics research by providing a standard problem where wide range of technologies can be integrated and examined. In order for a robot team to actually perform a soccer game, various technologies must be incorporate ..."
Abstract

Cited by 304 (5 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The Robot World Cup Initiative (RoboCup) is an attempt to foster AI and intelligent robotics research by providing a standard problem where wide range of technologies can be integrated and examined. In order for a robot team to actually perform a soccer game, various technologies must be incorporated including: design principles of autonomous agents, multiagent collaboration, strategy acquisition, realtime reasoning, robotics, and sensorfusion. Unlike AAAI robot competition, which is tuned for a single heavyduty slowmoving robot, RoboCup is a task for a team of multiple fastmoving robots under a dynamic environment. Although RoboCup's final target is a world cup with real robots, RoboCup offers a software platform for research on the software aspects of RoboCup. This paper describes technical challenges involved in RoboCup, rules, and simulation environment. 1 Introduction: RoboCup as a Standard AI Problem We propose a Robot World Cup (RoboCup), as a new standard problem for AI an...
Automatically Generating Abstractions for Planning
 Artificial Intelligence
, 1994
"... This article presents a completely automated approach to generating abstractions for planning. The abstractions are generated using a tractable, domainindependent algorithm whose only input is the definition of a problem to be solved and whose output is an abstraction hierarchy that is tailored ..."
Abstract

Cited by 205 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
This article presents a completely automated approach to generating abstractions for planning. The abstractions are generated using a tractable, domainindependent algorithm whose only input is the definition of a problem to be solved and whose output is an abstraction hierarchy that is tailored to the particular problem. The algorithm generates abstraction hierarchies by dropping literals from the original problem definition. It forms abstractions that satisfy the ordered monotonicity property, which guarantees that the structure of an abstract solution is not changed in the process of refining it. The algorithm for generating abstractions is implemented in a system called alpine, which generates abstractions for a hierarchical version of the prodigy problem solver. The abstractions generated by alpine are tested in multiple domains on large problem sets and are shown to produce shorter solutions with significantly less search than planning without using abstraction. 1 1 ...
Complexity Results for SAS+ Planning
 COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1993
"... We have previously reported a number of tractable planning problems defined in the SAS+ formalism. This report complements these results by providing a complete map over the complexity of SAS+ planning under all combinations of the previously considered restrictions. We analyze the complexity ..."
Abstract

Cited by 187 (24 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We have previously reported a number of tractable planning problems defined in the SAS+ formalism. This report complements these results by providing a complete map over the complexity of SAS+ planning under all combinations of the previously considered restrictions. We analyze the complexity both of finding a minimal plan and of finding any plan. In contrast to other complexity surveys of planning we study not only the complexity of the decision problems but also of the generation problems. We prove that the SAS+PUS problem is the maximal tractable problem under the restrictions we have considered if we want to generate minimal plans. If we are satisfied with any plan, then we can generalize further to the SAS+US problem, which we prove to be the maximal tractable problem in this case.
FeatureBased Methods For Large Scale Dynamic Programming
 Machine Learning
, 1994
"... We develop a methodological framework and present a few different ways in which dynamic programming and compact representations can be Combined to solve large scale stochastic control problems. In particular, we develop algorithms that employ two types of featurebased compact representations, that ..."
Abstract

Cited by 179 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
We develop a methodological framework and present a few different ways in which dynamic programming and compact representations can be Combined to solve large scale stochastic control problems. In particular, we develop algorithms that employ two types of featurebased compact representations, that is, representations that involve an arbitrarily complex feature extraction stage and a relatively simple approximation architecture. We prove the convergence of these algorithms and provide bounds on the approximation error. We also apply one of these algorithms to pro duce a computer program that plays Tetris at a respectable skill level. Furthermore, we provide a counterexample illustrating the difficulties of integrating compact representations and dynamic programming: which exemplifies the shortcomings of several methods in current practice, including Qlearning and temporaldifference learning.
Complexity, Decidability and Undecidability Results for DomainIndependent Planning
 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
, 1995
"... In this paper, we examine how the complexity of domainindependent planning with STRIPSstyle operators depends on the nature of the planning operators. We show ..."
Abstract

Cited by 155 (27 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
In this paper, we examine how the complexity of domainindependent planning with STRIPSstyle operators depends on the nature of the planning operators. We show
Recent Advances in AI Planning
 AI MAGAZINE
, 1999
"... The past five years have seen dramatic advances in planning algorithms, with an emphasis on propositional methods such as Graphplan and compilers that convert planning problems into propositional CNF formulae for solution via systematic or stochastic SAT methods. Related work on the Deep Space O ..."
Abstract

Cited by 127 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The past five years have seen dramatic advances in planning algorithms, with an emphasis on propositional methods such as Graphplan and compilers that convert planning problems into propositional CNF formulae for solution via systematic or stochastic SAT methods. Related work on the Deep Space One spacecraft control algorithms advances our understanding of interleaved planning and execution. In this survey,we explain the latest techniques and suggest areas for future research.