Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T14:59:54.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CASP solutions for planning in hybrid domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2017

MARCELLO BALDUCCINI ,
DANIELE MAGAZZENI ,
MARCO MARATEA  and
EMILY C. LEBLANC
MARCELLO BALDUCCINI
Affiliation:
Saint Joseph's University, Department of Decision and Support Services, 5600 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, USA (e-mail: marcello.balduccini@gmail.com)
DANIELE MAGAZZENI
Affiliation:
King's College London, Department of Informatics, The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, England (e-mail: daniele.magazzeni@kcl.ac.uk)
MARCO MARATEA
Affiliation:
University of Genoa, Italy (e-mail: marco@dibris.unige.it)
EMILY C. LEBLANC
Affiliation:
Drexel University, Computer Science Department, 3141 Chestnut Avenue, PA 19104, USA (e-mail: ecl38@drexel.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Constraint answer set programming (CASP) is an extension of answer set programming that allows for numerical constraints to be added in the rules. PDDL+ is an extension of the PDDL standard language of automated planning for modeling mixed discrete-continuous dynamics. In this paper, we present CASP solutions for dealing with PDDL+ problems, i.e., encoding from PDDL+ to CASP, and extensions to the algorithm of the ezcsp CASP solver in order to solve CASP programs arising from PDDL+ domains. An experimental analysis, performed on well-known linear and non-linear variants of PDDL+ domains, involving various configurations of the ezcsp solver, other CASP solvers, and PDDL+ planners, shows the viability of our solution.

Keywords

Answer set programmingplanninghybrid domains
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 591 - 633
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Bae, K., Ölveczky, P. C., Kong, S., Gao, S. and Clarke, E. M. 2016. SMT-based analysis of virtually synchronous distributed hybrid systems. In Proc. of 19th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC 2016), Abate, A. and Fainekos, G. E., Eds. ACM, 145–154.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. 2009. Representing constraint satisfaction problems in answer set programming. In Proc. of ICLP09 Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2009).Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Gelfond, M. 2003. Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In Proc. of International Symposium on Logical Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning, Doherty, P., McCarthy, J. and Williams, M.-A., Eds., AAAI 2003 Spring Symposium Series. AAAI Press, 9–18.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M. and Nogueira, M. 2006. Answer set based design of knowledge systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 47, 1–2, 183–219.Google Scholar
Balduccini, M. and Lierler, Y. 2013. Integration schemas for constraint answer set programming: A case study. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 13, 4–5, On-line Supplement.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, C., Son, T. C. and Tuan, L. 2002. A transition function based characterization of actions with delayed and continuous effects. In Proc. of 8th International Conference on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D. L. and Williams, M., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, 291–302.Google Scholar
Baselice, S., Bonatti, P. A. and Gelfond, M. 2005. Towards an integration of answer set and constraint solving. In Proc. of 21st International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2005), Gabbrielli, M. and Gupta, G., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3668, 52–66.Google Scholar
Bogomolov, S., Magazzeni, D., Minopoli, S. and Wehrle, M. 2015. PDDL+ planning with hybrid automata: Foundations of translating must behavior. In Proc. of 25th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2015), Brafman, R. I., Domshlak, C., Haslum, P. and Zilberstein, S., Eds. AAAI Press, 42–46.Google Scholar
Bogomolov, S., Magazzeni, D., Podelski, A. and Wehrle, M. 2014. Planning as model checking in hybrid domains. In Proc. of 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2014), Brodley, C. E. and Stone, P., Eds. AAAI Press, 2228–2234.Google Scholar
Bryce, D., Gao, S., Musliner, D. J. and Goldman, R. P. 2015. SMT-based nonlinear PDDL+ planning. In Proc. of 29h AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ICAPS 2015), Bonet, B. and Koenig, S., Eds. AAAI Press, 3247–3253.Google Scholar
Cashmore, M., Fox, M., Long, D. and Magazzeni, D. 2016. A compilation of the full PDDL+ language into SMT. In Proc. of the 26th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2016), Coles, A. J., Coles, A., Edelkamp, S., Magazzeni, D. and Sanner, S., Eds. AAAI Press, 79–87.Google Scholar
Cavada, R., Cimatti, A., Dorigatti, M., Griggio, A., Mariotti, A., Micheli, A., Mover, S., Roveri, M. and Tonetta, S. 2014. The nuXmv symbolic model checker. In Proc. of 26th International Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV 2104), Biere, A. and Bloem, R., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8559. Springer, 334–342.Google Scholar
Cervesato, I. and Montanari, A. 2000. A calculus of macro-events: Progress report. In Proc. of 7th International Workshop on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (TIME 2000). IEEE Computer Society, 47–58.Google Scholar
Chintabathina, S. 2013. Planning and scheduling in hybrid domains using answer set programming. URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1389v1 [Accessed on 02/05/2016].Google Scholar
Chintabathina, S., Gelfond, M. and Watson, R. 2005. Modeling hybrid domains using process description language. In Proc. of ASP '05: Answer Set Programming: Advances in Theory and Implementation, 303–317.Google Scholar
Cimatti, A., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F. and Traverso, P. 1997. Planning via model checking: A decision procedure for AR. In Recent Advances in AI Planning. Springer, 130–142.Google Scholar
Cimatti, A., Griggio, A., Mover, S. and Tonetta, S. 2015. HyComp: An SMT-based model checker for hybrid systems. In Proc. of Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (ETAPS 2015), 52–67.Google Scholar
Coles, A. J., Coles, A., Fox, M. and Long, D. 2012. COLIN: Planning with continuous linear numeric change. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 44, 1–96.Google Scholar
Della Penna, G., Intrigila, B., Magazzeni, D. and Mercorio, F. 2010. A PDDL+ benchmark problem: The batch chemical plant. In Proc. of 20th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2010), Brafman, R. I., Geffner, H., Hoffmann, J. and Kautz, H. A., Eds. AAAI Press, 222–225.Google Scholar
Della Penna, G., Magazzeni, D. and Mercorio, F. 2012. A universal planning system for hybrid domains. Applied Intelligence 36, 4, 932–959.Google Scholar
Della Penna, G., Magazzeni, D., Mercorio, F. and Intrigila, B. 2009. UPMurphi: A tool for universal planning on PDDL+ problems. In Proc. of 19th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2009), Gerevini, A., Howe, A. E., Cesta, A. and Refanidis, I., Eds. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Evans, C. 1990. The macro-event calculus: Representing temporal granularity. In Proc. of Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 1990). IOS Press.Google Scholar
Fox, M. and Long, D. 2006. Modelling mixed discrete-continuous domains for planning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 27, 235–297.Google Scholar
Fox, M., Long, D. and Magazzeni, D. 2011. Automatic construction of efficient multiple battery usage policies. In Proc. of 21st International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2011), Bacchus, F., Domshlak, C., Edelkamp, S. and Helmert, M., Eds. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Fox, M., Long, D. and Magazzeni, D. 2012. Plan-based policies for efficient multiple battery load management. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 44, 335–382.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Proc. of 5th International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming (ICLP/SLP 1988), Kowalski, R. A. and Bowen, K. A., Eds., 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 365–385.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1993. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17, 2–4, 301–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henzinger, T. A. 1996. The theory of hybrid automata. In Proc. of 11th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS 1996), 278–292.Google Scholar
Henzinger, T. A. and Otop, J. 2014. Model measuring for hybrid systems. In Proc. of 17th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (part of CPS Week) (HSCC 2014), Fränzle, M. and Lygeros, J., Eds. ACM, 213–222.Google Scholar
Howey, R., Long, D. and Fox, M. 2004. Val: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using PDDL. In Proc. of 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2004). IEEE Computer Society, 294–301.Google Scholar
Jaffar, J. and Lassez, J.-L. 1987. Constraint logic programming. In Proc. of 14th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL 1987). ACM Press, 111–119.Google Scholar
Karaman, S., Walter, M. R., Perez, A., Frazzoli, E. and Teller, S. J. 2011. Anytime motion planning using the RRT. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2011). IEEE, 1478–1483.Google Scholar
Katriel, I. and van Hoeve, W.-J. 2006. Global constraints. In Handbook of Constraint Programming, Rossi, F., van Beek, P. and Walsh, T., Eds. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Chapter 6. Elsevier, 169–208.Google Scholar
Kautz, H. A. and Selman, B. 1992. Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. of 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1992), Neumann, B., Ed. 359–363.Google Scholar
Lahijanian, M., Kavraki, L. E. and Vardi, M. Y. 2014. A sampling-based strategy planner for nondeterministic hybrid systems. In Proc. of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2014). IEEE, 3005–3012.Google Scholar
Li, H. X. and Williams, B. C. 2008. Generative planning for hybrid systems based on flow tubes. In Proc. of 18th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2008), Rintanen, J., Nebel, B., Beck, J. C. and Hansen, E. A., Eds. AAAI Press, 206–213.Google Scholar
Lierler, Y. 2014. Relating constraint answer set programming languages and algorithms. Artificial Intelligence 207, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138, 39–54.Google Scholar
Liu, J. and Ozay, N. 2014. Abstraction, discretization, and robustness in temporal logic control of dynamical systems. In Proc. of 17th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (part of CPS Week) (HSCC 2014), Fränzle, M. and Lygeros, J., Eds. ACM, 293–302.Google Scholar
Maly, M. R., Lahijanian, M., Kavraki, L. E., Kress-Gazit, H. and Vardi, M. Y. 2013. Iterative temporal motion planning for hybrid systems in partially unknown environments. In Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC 2013), Belta, C. and Ivancic, F., Eds. ACM, 353–362.Google Scholar
Marek, V. W. and Truszczynski, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 375–398.Google Scholar
Marriott, K., Stuckey, P. J. and Wallace, M. 2006. Handbook of Constraint Programming. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier, Chapter 12. Constraint Logic Programming, 409–452.Google Scholar
McDermott, D. V. 2003. Reasoning about autonomous processes in an estimated-regression planner. In Proc. of 13th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2003), Giunchiglia, E., Muscettola, N. and Nau, D. S., Eds. AAAI Press, 143–152.Google Scholar
Mellarkod, V. S., Gelfond, M. and Zhang, Y. 2008. Integrating answer set programming and constraint logic programming. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 53, 1–4, 251–287.Google Scholar
Miller, R. and Shanahan, M. 1996. Reasoning about discontinuities in the event calculus. In Proc. of 5th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1996), Aiello, L. C., Doyle, J. and Shapiro, S. C., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, 63–74.Google Scholar
Nau, D., Ghallab, M. and Traverso, P. 2004. Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3–4, 241–27.Google Scholar
Ostrowski, M. and Schaub, T. 2012. ASP modulo CSP: The clingcon system. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 12, 4–5, 485–503.Google Scholar
Penberthy, J. S. and Weld, D. S. 1994. Temporal planning with continuous change. In Proc. of 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1994), Hayes-Roth, B. and Korf, R. E., Eds. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1010–1015.Google Scholar
Piacentini, C., Magazzeni, D., Long, D., Fox, M. and Dent, C. 2016. Solving realistic unit commitment problems using temporal planning: Challenges and solutions. In Proc. of 26th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2016), Coles, A. J., Coles, A., Edelkamp, S., Magazzeni, D. and Sanner, S., Eds. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Piotrowski, W., Fox, M., Long, D., Magazzeni, D. and Mercorio, F. 2016. Heuristic planning for PDDL+ domains. In Proc. of 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2016), Kambhampati, S., Ed. IJCAI/AAAI Press, 3213–3219.Google Scholar
Plaku, E., Kavraki, L. E. and Vardi, M. Y. 2013. Falsification of LTL safety properties in hybrid systems. Software and Tools for Technology Transfer 15, 4, 305–320.Google Scholar
Reiter, R. 2001. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. 1990. Representing continuous change in the event calculus. In Proc. of 9th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1990). 598–603.Google Scholar
Shin, J.-A. and Davis, E. 2005. Processes and continuous change in a SAT-based planner. Artificial Intelligence 166, 1–2, 194–253.Google Scholar
Smith, B. M. 2006. Modelling. In Handbook of Constraint Programming, Rossi, F., van Beek, P. and Walsh, T., Eds. Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, Chapter 11. Elsevier, 377–406.Google Scholar
Tabuada, P., Pappas, G. J. and Lima, P. U. 2002. Composing abstractions of hybrid systems. In Proc. of 5th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control (HSCC 2002), Tomlin, C. and Greenstreet, M. R., Eds., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2289. Springer, 436–450.Google Scholar
Vallati, M., Magazzeni, D., Schutter, B. D., Chrpa, L. and McCluskey, T. L. 2016. Efficient macroscopic urban traffic models for reducing congestion: A PDDL+ planning approach. In Proc. of 30th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2016), Schuurmans, D. and Wellman, M. P., Eds. AAAI Press, 3188–3194.Google Scholar