Maintaining Arc-consistency over Mutex Relations in Planning Graphs during Search Pavel Surynek Roman Barták Charles University, Prague Czech Republic.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hybrid BDD and All-SAT Method for Model Checking Orna Grumberg Joint work with Assaf Schuster and Avi Yadgar Technion – Israel Institute of Technology.
Advertisements

1 Today’s class Interleaving backtracking and consistency checking Variable-ordering heuristics Value-ordering heuristics Intelligent backtracking Marie.
Planning II: Partial Order Planning
Graphplan. Automated Planning: Introduction and Overview 2 The Dock-Worker Robots (DWR) Domain informal description: – harbour with several locations.
Constraint Based Reasoning over Mutex Relations in Graphplan Algorithm Pavel Surynek Charles University, Prague Czech Republic.
Planning Module THREE: Planning, Production Systems,Expert Systems, Uncertainty Dr M M Awais.
Projection Global Consistency: Application in AI Planning Pavel Surynek Charles University, Prague Czech Republic.
CLASSICAL PLANNING What is planning ?  Planning is an AI approach to control  It is deliberation about actions  Key ideas  We have a model of the.
1 Constraint Satisfaction Problems A Quick Overview (based on AIMA book slides)
1 Finite Constraint Domains. 2 u Constraint satisfaction problems (CSP) u A backtracking solver u Node and arc consistency u Bounds consistency u Generalized.
ICS-271:Notes 5: 1 Lecture 5: Constraint Satisfaction Problems ICS 271 Fall 2008.
Artificial Intelligence Constraint satisfaction problems Fall 2008 professor: Luigi Ceccaroni.
1 Graphplan José Luis Ambite * [* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Solving Difficult SAT Instances Using Greedy Clique Decomposition Pavel Surynek Faculty of.
Graph-based Planning Brian C. Williams Sept. 25 th & 30 th, J/6.834J.
Planning Graphs * Based on slides by Alan Fern, Berthe Choueiry and Sungwook Yoon.
PLANNING IN AI. Determine the set of steps that are necessary to achieve a goal Some steps might be conditional, i.e., they are only taken when a set.
Tractable Class of a Problem of Finding Supports Pavel Surynek Roman Barták Charles University, Prague Czech Republic.
1 Motivation Problem formulation should change to accommodate changes in real world! Some examples: delayed trains, flights, … broken machines, ill workers,
Search: Representation and General Search Procedure Jim Little UBC CS 322 – Search 1 September 10, 2014 Textbook § 3.0 –
An Improved Algorithm for Maintaining Arc Consistency in Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction Problems Pavel Surynek Czech Technical University Prague
Answer Set Programming vs CSP: Power of Constraint Propagation Compared Jia-Huai You ( 犹嘉槐 ) University of Alberta Canada.
AI – Week AI Planning – Plan Generation Algorithms: GraphPlan Lee McCluskey, room 2/09
Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Jean-Charles REGIN Michel RUEHER ILOG Sophia Antipolis Université de Nice – Sophia Antipolis A global constraint combining.
A game of logic where the player must assign the numbers 1..9 to cells on a 9x9 grid. The placement of the numbers must be such that every number must.
1 Planning Chapters 11 and 12 Thanks: Professor Dan Weld, University of Washington.
F INDING P LANS FOR R EARRANGING R OBOTS IN  - LIKE E NVIRONMENTS Pavel Surynek Charles University in Prague Faculty of Mathematics and Physics The Czech.
Classical Planning Chapter 10.
Applying Constraint Satisfaction Techniques to AI Planning Problems Daniel Buettner Constraint Systems Laboratory Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
 Optimal Packing of High- Precision Rectangles By Eric Huang & Richard E. Korf 25 th AAAI Conference, 2011 Florida Institute of Technology CSE 5694 Robotics.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Jonathon Doran. The Planning Domain A domain describes the objects, facts, and actions in the universe. We may have a box and a table in our universe.
Homework 1 ( Written Portion )  Max : 75  Min : 38  Avg : 57.6  Median : 58 (77%)
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Tractable Class of a Problem of Goal Satisfaction in Mutual Exclusion Network Pavel Surynek Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Charles University, Prague.
Midterm Review Prateek Tandon, John Dickerson. Basic Uninformed Search (Summary) b = branching factor d = depth of shallowest goal state m = depth of.
Hande ÇAKIN IES 503 TERM PROJECT CONSTRAINT SATISFACTION PROBLEMS.
Introduction to Planning Dr. Shazzad Hosain Department of EECS North South Universtiy
CPSC 322, Lecture 18Slide 1 Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning Jim Little UBC CS 322 October 15, 2014 Textbook §8.
Chapter 5 Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Review Test1. Robotics & Future Technology Future of Intelligent Systems / Ray Kurzweil futurist Ray Kurzweil / A Long Bet A Long Bet / Robot Soccer.
Artificial Intelligence Tutorials
Domain-Dependent View of Multiple Robots Path Planning Pavel Surynek Charles University, Prague Czech Republic.
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Lecture 5: Constraint Satisfaction Problems Ramin Halavati In which we see how treating.
Robust Planning using Constraint Satisfaction Techniques Daniel Buettner and Berthe Y. Choueiry Constraint Systems Laboratory Department of Computer Science.
Graphplan: Fast Planning through Planning Graph Analysis Avrim Blum Merrick Furst Carnegie Mellon University.
Making Path-Consistency Stronger for SAT Pavel Surynek Faculty of Mathematics and Physics Charles University in Prague Czech Republic.
Graphplan CSE 574 April 4, 2003 Dan Weld. Schedule BASICS Intro Graphplan SATplan State-space Refinement SPEEDUP EBL & DDB Heuristic Gen TEMPORAL Partial-O.
Roman Barták (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic) ACAT 2010.
1 Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques. 2 Motivation A big source of inefficiency in search algorithms is the branching factor  the number of children.
Hybrid BDD and All-SAT Method for Model Checking
Temporal Graphplan David E. Smith & Dan Weld.
Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning
Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning
Class #17 – Thursday, October 27
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Class #19 – Monday, November 3
Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques
Tower of Hanoi Algorithm
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
GraphPlan Jim Blythe.
An Introduction to Planning Graph
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
[* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
GRASP-an efficient SAT solver
Constraint Graph Binary CSPs
Presentation transcript:

Maintaining Arc-consistency over Mutex Relations in Planning Graphs during Search Pavel Surynek Roman Barták Charles University, Prague Czech Republic

Maintaining Arc-consistency over Mutex Relations in Planning Graphs during Search FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták AI Planning Problem AI Planning Optimal Solution Planning Graphs Arc-consistency Our Contribution Justification Experiments What it is about

AI Planning Problems - example / motivation Dock Worker Robots (Ghallab, Nau, Traverso, 2003) location B location C location A 5 6 location D location E location F  Initial state of the planning world  Actions transforming states of the planning world location B location C location A 5 location D location E location F  take(box1,craneA) load(box1,small_truck)  Goal state of the planning world  Task: Transform using actions FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták

AI Planning Problems - optimal solution / existence  Initial state = set of atoms (empty(small_truck), on(box1, box3),...)  Perform actions A1=move(small_truck,locationA) A2=take(craneB,box2),... A1A2An...  Action = a triple (i) precondition = set of atoms, that must be contained in a state (ii) positive effect = set of atoms added to the state (iii) negative effect = set of atoms deleted from the state AxAyAz...  Reach the goal = set of literals (required atoms and forbidden atoms) FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  Optimal solution = shortest possible sequence  parallel actions (must not conflict)

Conflicting Actions - mutual exclusion FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  (two) actions load(small_truck,box1) load(big_truck,box1) are dependent  (two) actions load(small_truck,box1) load(big_truck,box2) are independent  Independent actions can be performed in parallel  Dependent cannot occur together at a single time step ►►► actions are mutually excluded = mutex...  A set of actions at a single time step is mutex free

Planning Graphs (Blum, Furst, 1997) FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x  Goal (mutex free) =  Initial state =  A layer represents set of states new atom new action

GraphPlan / Plan Extraction (Blum, Furst, 1997) FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x  each action supports its positive effect (set of atoms)  for each atom, we have several supporting actions ►►► choice points  mutex free set of actions supporting the goal induces another goal at lower layer

Goal/Sub-goal: A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 x atom 1 atom 2 atom 3atom 4 supports for atom 1 supports for atom 2 supports for atom 3 supports for atom 4 x x x x x x x Our Contribution - Arc-consistency FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  Determining a set of mutex free actions - very frequent and time consuming operation ►►►address the sub-problem cleverly  View the layer as a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) and maintain arc-consistency (MAC) during search for mutex free actions  Select action A1 A1 A2 A3  Propagate changes by AC A4 A6 A9 A8 A10 A11 A12 A5 A7  Solved using one (backtrack) decision (the rest is AC propagation)

Why Arc-consistency - several notes FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  AC represents a good compromise between time consumption and strength of propagation  Stronger consistency - Singleton AC provides slightly better propagation, but very time consuming  Weaker consistency - Forward checking is fast, but propagates only in neighborhood of the change  Planning graphs are large - hundreds of atoms per layer, hundreds of supporting actions per atom ►►► large search space

Experimental evaluation - Towers of Hanoi FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  Original puzzle (3 pegs, 4 discs, and 1 hand)  Our generalization (more pegs, discs, and hands)

Experimental evaluation - Dock Worker Robots FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  Locations with several places for stacks for boxes and with several cranes  Each crane can reach some stacks within location (not all)  Trucks of various capacities (small - 1 box, big - 2 boxes)

Experimental evaluation - Refueling planes FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták distance X distance Y distance Z  Several planes dislocated at several airports  Transport a fleet of planes at destination airport  Airport - unlimited source of fuel, planes can refuel in-flight

Experimental evaluation - Results FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  Significant improvements on problems with high action parallelism (Dock Worker Robots, Refueling Planes, Hanoi Towers with more hands)  Almost no improvement on problems with no action parallelism (Dock Worker Robots with one truck, Refueling lanes with one plane, Hanoi Towers with one hands)

Conclusions FLAIRS 2007 Pavel Surynek and Roman Barták  Improvement of the GraphPlan algorithm Better method for finding mutex free set of actions supporting a goal We use maintaining arc-consistency (AC)  Experimental evaluation Several real-life planning problems (DWR, Planes, Hanoi) Maintaining AC especially successful on problems with high action parallelism