Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T23:17:20.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generation of macro-operators via investigation of action dependencies in plans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

Lukáš Chrpa
Lukáš Chrpa*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of Theoretical Computer Science and Mathematical Logic, Charles University in Prague, Malostranské náměsti 25, 118 00, Prague 1, Czech Republic e-mail: chrpa@kti.mff.cuni.cz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are many approaches for solving planning problems. Many of these approaches are based on ‘brute force’ search methods and they usually do not care about structures of plans previously computed in particular planning domains. By analyzing these structures, we can obtain useful knowledge that can help us find solutions to more complex planning problems. The method described in this paper is designed for gathering macro-operators by analyzing training plans. This sort of analysis is based on the investigation of action dependencies in training plans. Knowledge gained by our method can be passed directly to planning algorithms to improve their efficiency.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 25 , Special Issue 3: Planning and scheduling , September 2010 , pp. 281 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armano, G., Cherch, G., Vargiu, E. 2005. DHG: a system for generating macro-operators from static domain analysis. In Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence and Applications (AIA), Innsbruck, Austria, 18–23.Google Scholar
Armano, G., Cherch, G., Vargiu, E. 2003. A parametric hierarchical planner for experimenting abstraction techniques. Proceedings of IJCAI, Acapulco, Mexico, 936–941.Google Scholar
Blum, A., Furst, M. 1997. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90(1–2), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, B., Geffner, H. 1999. Planning as heuristic search: new results. In Proceedings of ECP, Durham, UK, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1809, 360–372. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botea, A., Enzenberger, M., Muller, M., Schaeffer, J. 2005. Macro-FF: improving AI planning with automatically learned macro-operators. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24, 581–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrpa, L. 2008. Generation of macro-operators via investigation of actions dependencies in plans. In Proceedings of KEPS, Sydney, Australia. http://ktiml.mff.cuni.cz/~bartak/KEPS2008/Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., Bartak, R. 2008a. Looking for planning problems solvable in polynomial time via investigation of structures of action dependencies. In Proceedings of SCAI, Stockholm, Sweden. IOS Press, 173, 175–180.Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., Bartak, R. 2008b. Towards getting domain knowledge: plans analysis through investigation of actions dependencies. In Proceedings of FLAIRS, Coconut Grove, Florida, USA. AAAI Press, 531–536.Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., Bartak, R. 2009. Reformulating planning problems by eliminating unpromising actions. In Proceedings of SARA, Lake Arrowhead, California, USA. AAAI Press, 50–57.Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., Surynek, P., Vyskocil, J 2007. Encoding of planning problems and their optimizations in linear logic. In Proceedings of INAP/WLP. Technical Report 434, Bayerische Julius–Maximilians–Universität Würzburg, 47–58.Google Scholar
Coles, A., Fox, M., Smith, K. A. 2007. Online identification of useful macro-actions for planning. In Proceedings of ICAPS, Providence, RI, USA. AAAI Press, 97–104.Google Scholar
Coles, A., Smith, K. A. 2007. Marvin: a heuristic search planner with online macro-action learning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 28, 119–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, C., Siklóssy, L. 1977. The role of preprocessing in problem solving systems. In Proceedings of IJCAI 1, Cambridge, MA, USA, 465–471.Google Scholar
Fikes, R., Nilsson, L. 1971. STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Inteligence 2(3–4), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, M., Long, D. 1999. The detection and exploitation of symmetry in planning problems. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Stockholm, Sweden, 956–961.Google Scholar
Geffner, H. 1990. Causal theories of nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proceedings of AAAI, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. AAAI Press, 524–530.Google Scholar
Gerevini, A., Serina, I. 2002. LPG: a planner based on local search for planning graphs with action costs. In Proceedings of AIPS, Toulouse, France. AAAI Press, 13–22.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P. 2004. Automated Planning, Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Gimenez, O., Jonsson, A. 2007. On the hardeness of planning problems with simple causal graphs. In Proceedings of ICAPS, Providence, RI, USA. AAAI Press, 152–159.Google Scholar
Grandcolas, S., Pain-Barre, C. 2007. Filtering, decomposition and search space reduction for optimal sequential planning. In Proceedings of AAAI, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. AAAI Press, 993–998.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, J., Porteous, J., Sebastia, L. 2004. Ordered landmarks in planning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 215–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsu, C.-W., Wah, B. W., Huang, R., Chen, Y 2007. SGPlan. http://manip.crhc.uiuc.edu/programs/SGPlan/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Iba, G.A. 1989. A Heuristic approach to the discovery of macro-operators. Machine Learning 3, 285–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iba, G. A. 1985. Learning by discovering macros in puzzle solving. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Los Angeles, California, USA, 640–642.Google Scholar
Katz, M., Domshlak, C. 2007. Structural patterns of tracable sequentialy-optimal planning. In Proceedings of ICAPS, Providence, RI, USA. AAAI Press, 200–207.Google Scholar
Kautz, H., Selman, B., Hoffmann, J 2006. Satplan: planning as satisfiability. In Proceedings of IPC. http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/booklet/deterministic11.pdfGoogle Scholar
Knoblock, C. 1994. Automatically generated abstractions for planning. Artificial Intelligence 68(2), 243–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korf, R. 1985. Macro-operators: a weak method for learning. Artificial Intelligence 26(1), 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanström, J., Magnusson, M. 2003. TALplanner in the third international planning competition: extensions and control rules. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 343–377.Google Scholar
Lin, F. 1995. Embracing causality in specifiing the indirect effects of actions. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Montréal, Québec, Canada. AAAI press, 1985–1991.Google Scholar
McCain, N., Turner, H. 1997. Causal theories of action and change. In Proceedings of AAAI, Providence, RI, USA. AAAI press, 460–465.Google Scholar
McCluskey, T. L. 1987. Combining weak learning heuristics in general problem solvers. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Milan, Italy, 331–333.Google Scholar
Mehlhorn, K. 1984. Data Structures and Algorithms 2: Graph Algorithms and NP-completeness. Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minton, S. 1985. Selectively generalizing plans for problem-solving. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Los Angeles, California, USA, 596–599.Google Scholar
Minton, S., Carbonell, J. G. 1987. Strategies for learning search control rules: an explanation-based approach. In Proceedings of IJCAI, Milan, Italy, 228–235.Google Scholar
Nau, D., Au, T., Ilghami, O., Kuter, U., Mudrock, J., Wu, D., Yaman, F. 2003. SHOP2: an HTN planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 379–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nejati, N., Langley, P., Konik, T. 2006. Learning hierarchical task networks by observation. In Proceedings of ICML, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 148, 665–672.Google Scholar
Newton, M. H., Levine, J., Fox, M., Long, D. 2007. Learning macro-actions for arbitrary planners and domains. In Proceedings of ICAPS, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 256–263.Google Scholar
Richter, S., Westphal, M 2008. The LAMA planner using landmark counting in heuristic search In Proceedings of the 6th IPC. http://ipc.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/Google Scholar
Vidal, V., Geffner, H. 2006. Branching and Pruning: an optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming. Artificial Intelligence 170(3), 298–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, K., Yang, Q., Jiang, Y. 2005. Arms: action-relation modelling system for learning action models. In Proceedings of ICKEPS. http://scom.hud.ac.uk/scomtlm/competition/papers/paper6.pdfGoogle Scholar