A Hybrid Linear Programming and Relaxed Plan Heuristic for Partial Satisfaction Planning Problems J. Benton Menkes van den BrielSubbarao Kambhampati Arizona.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 LP, extended maxflow, TRW OR: How to understand Vladimirs most recent work Ramin Zabih Cornell University.
Advertisements

Forward-Chaining Partial-Order Planning Amanda Coles, Andrew Coles, Maria Fox and Derek Long (to appear, ICAPS 2010)
Cognitive Science Integrating a Closed World Planner with an Open World Robot: A Case Study 1 Kartik Talamadupula J. Benton Subbarao Kambhampati Dept.
Branch-and-Bound Technique for Solving Integer Programs
Solving IPs – Cutting Plane Algorithm General Idea: Begin by solving the LP relaxation of the IP problem. If the LP relaxation results in an integer solution,
Linear programming: lp_solve, max flow, dual CSC 282 Fall 2013.
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.
An LP-Based Heuristic for Optimal Planning Menkes van den Briel Department of Industrial Engineering Arizona State University
© Imperial College London Eplex: Harnessing Mathematical Programming Solvers for Constraint Logic Programming Kish Shen and Joachim Schimpf IC-Parc.
Top 5 Worst Times For A Conference Talk 1.Last Day 2.Last Session of Last Day 3.Last Talk of Last Session of Last Day 4.Last Talk of Last Session of Last.
Join-graph based cost-shifting Alexander Ihler, Natalia Flerova, Rina Dechter and Lars Otten University of California Irvine Introduction Mini-Bucket Elimination.
Effective Approaches for Partial Satisfaction (Over-subscription) Planning Romeo Sanchez * Menkes van den Briel ** Subbarao Kambhampati * * Department.
Subbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University What’s Hot: ICAPS “Challenges in Planning” A brief talk on the core & (one) fringe of ICAPS Talk given at.
5-1 Chapter 5 Tree Searching Strategies. 5-2 Satisfiability problem Tree representation of 8 assignments. If there are n variables x 1, x 2, …,x n, then.
EMIS 8373: Integer Programming Valid Inequalities updated 4April 2011.
1 Integer Programming Approaches for Automated Planning Menkes van den Briel Department of Industrial Engineering Arizona State University
Over-subscription Planning with Numeric Goals J. Benton Computer Sci. & Eng. Dept. Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Minh Do Palo Alto Research Center.
Subbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University Real World Planning: Soft Constraints & Incomplete Models Colloquium at WUSTL CSE 10/5/2007 Funding from.
TADA Transition Aligned Domain Analysis T J. Benton and Kartik Talamadupula and Subbarao Kambhampati.
Finding Admissible Bounds for Over- subscribed Planning Problems J. Benton Menkes van den BrielSubbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University.
Computational Methods for Management and Economics Carla Gomes
State Agnostic Planning Graphs William Cushing Daniel Bryce Arizona State University {william.cushing, Special thanks to: Subbarao Kambhampati,
Planning Graph-based Heuristics for Cost-sensitive Temporal Planning Minh B. Do & Subbarao Kambhampati CSE Department, Arizona State University
Solving the Protein Threading Problem in Parallel Nocola Yanev, Rumen Andonov Indrajit Bhattacharya CMSC 838T Presentation.
Expressive and Efficient Frameworks for Partial Satisfaction Planning Subbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University (Proposal submitted for consideration.
Minh Do - PARC Planning with Goal Utility Dependencies J. Benton Department of Computer Science Arizona State University Tempe, AZ Subbarao.
Penn ESE535 Spring DeHon 1 ESE535: Electronic Design Automation Day 5: February 2, 2009 Architecture Synthesis (Provisioning, Allocation)
Reviving Integer Programming Approaches for AI Planning: A Branch-and-Cut Framework Thomas Vossen Leeds School of Business University of Colorado at Boulder.
CS121 Heuristic Search Planning CSPs Adversarial Search Probabilistic Reasoning Probabilistic Belief Learning.
1 Contents college 3 en 4 Book: Appendix A.1, A.3, A.4, §3.4, §3.5, §4.1, §4.2, §4.4, §4.6 (not: §3.6 - §3.8, §4.2 - §4.3) Extra literature on resource.
1 Combinatorial Problems in Cooperative Control: Complexity and Scalability Carla Gomes and Bart Selman Cornell University Muri Meeting March 2002.
Penn ESE535 Spring DeHon 1 ESE535: Electronic Design Automation Day 5: February 2, 2009 Architecture Synthesis (Provisioning, Allocation)
Cutting Planes II. The Knapsack Problem Recall the knapsack problem: n items to be packed in a knapsack (can take multiple copies of the same item). The.
LP formulation of Economic Dispatch
Airline Schedule Optimization (Fleet Assignment II) Saba Neyshabouri.
Daniel Kroening and Ofer Strichman Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View Deciding ILPs with Branch & Bound ILP References: ‘Integer Programming’
Integer programming Branch & bound algorithm ( B&B )
Decision Procedures An Algorithmic Point of View
Introduction to Job Shop Scheduling Problem Qianjun Xu Oct. 30, 2001.
Operations Research Assistant Professor Dr. Sana’a Wafa Al-Sayegh 2 nd Semester ITGD4207 University of Palestine.
Types of IP Models All-integer linear programs Mixed integer linear programs (MILP) Binary integer linear programs, mixed or all integer: some or all of.
Integer Programming Key characteristic of an Integer Program (IP) or Mixed Integer Linear Program (MILP): One or more of the decision variable must be.
CP Summer School Modelling for Constraint Programming Barbara Smith 2. Implied Constraints, Optimization, Dominance Rules.
Ames Research Center Thinking Outside the “Box” David E. Smith NASA Ames Research Center.
CSE 589 Part VI. Reading Skiena, Sections 5.5 and 6.8 CLR, chapter 37.
15.053Tuesday, April 9 Branch and Bound Handouts: Lecture Notes.
1 Branch and Bound Searching Strategies Updated: 12/27/2010.
1 Iterative Integer Programming Formulation for Robust Resource Allocation in Dynamic Real-Time Systems Sethavidh Gertphol and Viktor K. Prasanna University.
MDPs (cont) & Reinforcement Learning
Divide and Conquer Optimization problem: z = max{cx : x  S}
Quality of LP-based Approximations for Highly Combinatorial Problems Lucian Leahu and Carla Gomes Computer Science Department Cornell University.
Integer LP In-class Prob
Implicit Hitting Set Problems Richard M. Karp Erick Moreno Centeno DIMACS 20 th Anniversary.
Performance of Distributed Constraint Optimization Algorithms A.Gershman, T. Grinshpon, A. Meisels and R. Zivan Dept. of Computer Science Ben-Gurion University.
1 CS612 Algorithms for Electronic Design Automation CS 612 – Lecture 8 Lecture 8 Network Flow Based Modeling Mustafa Ozdal Computer Engineering Department,
Chapter 2. Optimal Trees and Paths Combinatorial Optimization
1 EE5900 Advanced Embedded System For Smart Infrastructure Static Scheduling.
Ion I. Mandoiu, Vijay V. Vazirani Georgia Tech Joseph L. Ganley Simplex Solutions A New Heuristic for Rectilinear Steiner Trees.
Heuristic Search Planners. 2 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE Planning as heuristic search Use standard search techniques, e.g. A*, best-first, hill-climbing.
Lecture 11: Tree Search © J. Christopher Beck 2008.
Minh Do, Terry Zimmerman, and Subbarao Kambhampati
Integer Linear Programming
MIP Tools Branch and Cut with Callbacks Lazy Constraint Callback
Integer Linear Programming
EE5900 Advanced Embedded System For Smart Infrastructure
We have the following incomplete B&B tree:
Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for Integer Program
Lecture 4: Tree Search Strategies
Integer Programming (IP)
Presentation transcript:

A Hybrid Linear Programming and Relaxed Plan Heuristic for Partial Satisfaction Planning Problems J. Benton Menkes van den BrielSubbarao Kambhampati Arizona State University

PSP UD Partial Satisfaction Planning with Utility Dependency cost: 150 cost: 1 (at plane loc2) (in person plane) (fly plane loc2) (debark person loc2) (at plane loc1) (in person plane) (at plane loc2) (at person loc2) utility((at plane loc1) & (at person loc3)) = 10 cost: 150 (fly plane loc3) (at plane loc3) (at person loc2) utility((at plane loc3)) = 1000utility((at person loc2)) = 1000 util(S 0 ): 0 S0S0 util(S 1 ): 0 S1S1 util(S 2 ): 1000 S2S2 util(S 3 ): =2010 S3S3 sum cost: 150 sum cost: 151sum cost: 251 net benefit(S 0 ): 0-0=0 net benefit(S 1 ): 0-150=-150 net benefit(S 2 ): =849net benefit(S 3 ): =1759 Actions have costGoal sets have utility loc2loc1 loc Maximize Net Benefit (utility - cost) (Do, et al., IJCAI 2007) (Smith, ICAPS 2004; van den Briel, et al., AAAI 2004)

Action Cost/Goal Achievement Interaction Plan Quality Heuristic search for SOFT GOALS Relaxed Planning Graph Heuristics Integer programming (IP) LP-relaxation Heuristics (Do & Kambhampati, KCBS 2004; Do, et al., IJCAI 2007) Cannot take all complex interactions into account Current encodings don’t scale well, can only be optimal to some plan step BBOP-LP

Use its LP relaxation for a heuristic value Build a network flow- based IP encoding Approach Perform branch and bound search No time indices Uses multi-valued variables Gives a second relaxation on the heuristic Uses the LP solution to find a relaxed plan (similar to YAHSP, Vidal 2004)

Building a Heuristic A network flow model on variable transitions Capture relevant transitions with multi-valued fluents prevail constraints initial states goal states cost on actionsutility on goals (no time indices) loc2loc1 loc planeperson cost: 1 cost: 101 cost: 150 cost: 200 cost: 100 util: 1000 util: 10 util: 1000

Building a Heuristic Constraints of this model 2. If a fact is deleted, then it must be added to re-achieve a value. 3. If a prevail condition is required, then it must be achieved. 1. If an action executes, then all of its effects and prevail conditions must also. 4. A goal utility dependency is achieved iff its goals are achieved. planeperson cost: 1 cost: 101 cost: 150 cost: 200 cost: 100 util: 1000 util: 10 util: 1000

Building a Heuristic Constraints of this model 1. If an action executes, then all of its effects and prevail conditions must also. 2. If a fact is deleted, then it must be added to re-achieve a value. 3. If a prevail condition is required, then it must be achieved. 4. A goal utility dependency is achieved iff its goals are achieved. action(a) = Σ effects of a in v effect(a,v,e) + Σ prevails of a in v prevail(a,v,f) 1{if f ∈ s 0 [v]} + Σ effects that add f effect(a,v,e) = Σ effects that delete f effect(a,v,e) + endvalue(v,f) 1{if f ∈ s 0 [v]} + Σ effects that add f effect(a,v,e) ≥ prevail(a,v,f) / M goaldep(k) ≥ Σ f in dependency k endvalue(v,f) – |G k | – 1 goaldep(k) ≤ endvalue(v,f) ∀ f in dependency k Variables action(a) ∈ Z + The number of times a ∈ A is executed effect(a,v,e) ∈ Z + The number of times a transition e in state variable v is caused by action a prevail(a,v,f) ∈ Z + The number of times a prevail condition f in state variable v is required by action a endvalue(v,f) ∈ {0,1} Equal to 1 if value f is the end value in a state variable v goaldep(k) Equal to 1 if a goal dependency is achieved Parameters cost(a) the cost of executing action a ∈ A utility(v,f) the utility of achieving value f in state variable v utility(k) the utility of achieving achieving goal dependency G k

Variables action(a) ∈ Z + The number of times a ∈ A is executed effect(a,v,e) ∈ Z + The number of times a transition e in state variable v is caused by action a prevail(a,v,f) ∈ Z + The number of times a prevail condition f in state variable v is required by action a endvalue(v,f) ∈ {0,1} Equal to 1 if value f is the end value in a state variable v goaldep(k) Equal to 1 if a goal dependency is achieved Parameters cost(a) the cost of executing action a ∈ A utility(v,f) the utility of achieving value f in state variable v utility(k) the utility of achieving achieving goal dependency G k Objective Function MAX Σ v ∈ V,f ∈ Dv utility(v,f) endvalue(v,f) + Σ k ∈ K utility(k) goaldep(k) – Σ a ∈ A cost(a) action(a) Maximize Net Benefit 2. If a fact is deleted, then it must be added to re-achieve a value. 1{if f ∈ s 0 [v]} + Σ effects that add f effect(a,v,e) = Σ effects that delete f effect(a,v,e) + endvalue(v,f) 3. If a prevail condition is required, then it must be achieved. 1{if f ∈ s 0 [v]} + Σ effects that add f effect(a,v,e) ≥ prevail(a,v,f) / M Updated at each search node

Search Branch and Bound Branch and bound with time limit Greedy lookahead strategy All soft goals; all states are goal states LP-solution guided relaxed plan extraction Similar to YAHSP (Vidal, 2004) Returns the best plan (i.e., best bound) To quickly find good bounds To add informedness

(at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (at plane loc2) (at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (drop person loc2) (fly loc2 loc3) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc3 loc2) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc1 loc3) (in person plane) (at person loc2) Getting a Relaxed Plan

(at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (at plane loc2) (at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (drop person loc2) (fly loc2 loc3) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc3 loc2) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc1 loc3) (in person plane) (at person loc2)

Getting a Relaxed Plan (at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (at plane loc2) (at plane loc1) (drop person loc2) (fly loc2 loc3) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc3 loc2) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc1 loc3) (in person plane) (at plane loc3) (at person loc2)

Getting a Relaxed Plan (at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (at plane loc2) (at plane loc1) (drop person loc2) (fly loc2 loc3) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc3 loc2) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc1 loc3) (in person plane) (at plane loc3) (at person loc2)

Getting a Relaxed Plan (at plane loc1) (at plane loc3) (at plane loc2) (at plane loc1) (drop person loc2) (fly loc2 loc3) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc3 loc2) (fly loc1 loc2) (fly loc1 loc3) (in person plane) (at plane loc3) (at person loc2)

Experimental Setup Three modified IPC 3 domains: zenotravel, satellite, rovers (maximize net benefit) Compared with, an admissible cost propagation-based heuristic Ran with 600 second time limit SPUDS, uses a relaxed plan-based heuristic - action costs - goal utilities - goal utility dependencies BBOP-LP : with and without RP lookahead

Results roverssatellite zenotravel optimal solutions Found optimal solution in 15 of 60 problems (higher net benefit is better)

Results

Novel LP-based heuristic for partial satisfaction planning Planner that is sensitive to plan quality: BBOP-LP Future Work Improve encoding Explore other lookahead methods Summary Branch and bound with RP lookahead