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.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Artificial Intelligence Chapter 13 The Propositional Calculus Biointelligence Lab School of Computer Sci. & Eng. Seoul National University.
Advertisements

Planning Module THREE: Planning, Production Systems,Expert Systems, Uncertainty Dr M M Awais.
Planning Chapter 11 Yet another popular formulation for AI – Logic-based language – One of the most structured formulations Can be translate into less.
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)
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Propositional and First Order Reasoning. Terminology Propositional variable: boolean variable (p) Literal: propositional variable or its negation p 
1 Graphplan José Luis Ambite * [* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Planning with Constraints Graphplan & SATplan Yongmei Shi.
Graph-based Planning Brian C. Williams Sept. 25 th & 30 th, J/6.834J.
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.
Planning and Scheduling. 2 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE Some background Many planning problems have a time-dependent component –  actions happen.
Planning CSE 473 Chapters 10.3 and 11. © D. Weld, D. Fox 2 Planning Given a logical description of the initial situation, a logical description of the.
1 Chapter 16 Planning Methods. 2 Chapter 16 Contents (1) l STRIPS l STRIPS Implementation l Partial Order Planning l The Principle of Least Commitment.
AI – Week AI Planning – Plan Generation Algorithms: GraphPlan Lee McCluskey, room 2/09
1 Boolean Satisfiability in Electronic Design Automation (EDA ) By Kunal P. Ganeshpure.
Planning: Part 3 Planning Graphs COMP151 April 4, 2007.
Extending Graphplan to handle Resources Presenter: Pham Van Cuong Department of Computer Science New Mexico State University.
CSE 5731 Lecture 21 State-Space Search vs. Constraint- Based Planning CSE 573 Artificial Intelligence I Henry Kautz Fall 2001.
1 Planning. R. Dearden 2007/8 Exam Format  4 questions You must do all questions There is choice within some of the questions  Learning Outcomes: 1.Explain.
Constraint Satisfaction Problems
Handling non-determinism and incompleteness. Problems, Solutions, Success Measures: 3 orthogonal dimensions  Incompleteness in the initial state  Un.
1 Backdoors To Typical Case Complexity Ryan Williams Carnegie Mellon University Joint work with: Carla Gomes and Bart Selman Cornell University.
1 BLACKBOX: A New Paradigm for Planning Bart Selman Cornell University.
1 BLACKBOX: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving Bart Selman Cornell University Joint work with Henry Kautz AT&T Labs.
Classical Planning via State-space search COMP3431 Malcolm Ryan.
SAT Solving Presented by Avi Yadgar. The SAT Problem Given a Boolean formula, look for assignment A for such that.  A is a solution for. A partial assignment.
Planning II CSE 573. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Reading for Wed Ch 18 thru 18.3 Office Hours No Office Hour Today.
Classical Planning Chapter 10.
Applying Constraint Satisfaction Techniques to AI Planning Problems Daniel Buettner Constraint Systems Laboratory Department of Computer Science and Engineering.
For Wednesday Read chapter 12, sections 3-5 Program 2 progress due.
Planning as Satisfiability CS Outline 0. Overview of Planning 1. Modeling and Solving Planning Problems as SAT - SATPLAN 2. Improved Encodings using.
Homework 1 ( Written Portion )  Max : 75  Min : 38  Avg : 57.6  Median : 58 (77%)
1 Chapter 7 Propositional Satisfiability Techniques.
1 Planning as Satisfiability Alan Fern * * Based in part on slides by Stuart Russell and Dana Nau  Review of propositional logic (see chapter 7)  Planning.
Stocs – A Stochastic CSP Solver Bella Dubrov IBM Haifa Research Lab © Copyright IBM.
Planning as Propositional Satisfiabililty Brian C. Williams Oct. 30 th, J/6.834J GSAT, Graphplan and WalkSAT Based on slides from Bart Selman.
1 Chapter 16 Planning Methods. 2 Chapter 16 Contents (1) l STRIPS l STRIPS Implementation l Partial Order Planning l The Principle of Least Commitment.
Introduction to Planning Dr. Shazzad Hosain Department of EECS North South Universtiy
CS 5411 Compilation Approaches to AI Planning 1 José Luis Ambite* Some slides are taken from presentations by Kautz and Selman. Please visit their.
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter Some material adapted from slides by Jean-Claude Latombe / Lise Getoor.
Classical Planning Chapter 10 Mausam / Andrey Kolobov (Based on slides of Dan Weld, Marie desJardins)
Planning as Satisfiability (SAT-Plan). SAT-Plan Translate the planning problem into a satisfiability problem for length n of Plan garb 0 (proposition)present.
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.
Automated Planning and Decision Making Prof. Ronen Brafman Automated Planning and Decision Making Graphplan Based on slides by: Ambite, Blyth and.
Solving the Logic Satisfiability problem Solving the Logic Satisfiability problem Jesus De Loera.
Graphplan CSE 574 April 4, 2003 Dan Weld. Schedule BASICS Intro Graphplan SATplan State-space Refinement SPEEDUP EBL & DDB Heuristic Gen TEMPORAL Partial-O.
Satisfiability and SAT Solvers CS 270 Math Foundations of CS Jeremy Johnson.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Heuristic Search Planners. 2 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE Planning as heuristic search Use standard search techniques, e.g. A*, best-first, hill-climbing.
1 Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques. 2 Motivation A big source of inefficiency in search algorithms is the branching factor  the number of children.
Planning as Satisfiability
Planning as Search State Space Plan Space Algorihtm Progression
The Propositional Calculus
Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning
Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning
Class #17 – Thursday, October 27
CSE P573 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Class 1 Planning & Search INTRODUCE MYSELF Relative new faculty member, but 20 years in AI research.
Planning as Satisfiability with Blackbox
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Planning as Satisfiability
Class #19 – Monday, November 3
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]
Presentation transcript:

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.

Fluents Propositions that are true or false at a point in time. There is a green box. The box is on the table. The state of the universe is described by a set of these fluents.

Actions A set of preconditions A set of fluents to add A set of fluents to delete STRIPS formalism Our goal is to move the universe from one state to another. Actions change the universe’s state.

Plans The goal is typically a subset of a final state. Actions imply state... plans are equivalently a list of states. An initial state of the universe, and a list of actions that change the universe to some goal state.

Plan Structure We could look at a plan as an alternating sequence of states and actions... SASASAS... Plans are also recursive. SA (S A (S A S)) Plans are not necessarily unique.

The State Space Actions: Up, Down, Left, Right This space grows exponentially with the number of variables!

Complications How do we plan a route? We cannot reliably estimate our distance to the goal...

Planning is NP-Complete Abandon all hope It gets worse: Optimal planning is NP-Hard Early planners did an exhaustive search.

Some Hope But we have seen techniques for dealing with NP-complete problems... DPLL prunes the solution space. This works if we are lucky.

GraphPlan Blum and Furst 1995 Represents solution space as a graph. Able to prune this graph in polynomial time. Able to build this graph in polynomial time.

Graph Representation Circles represent fluents. Squares represent actions.

Mutual Exclusion Mutually exclusive situations may be identified and pruned. Actions are mutex if no plan could contain both at the same time.

Mutex Examples Interference: (one action deletes a precond of another) I have $15, and can either buy a CD or a movie ticket. Inconsistent Effects: The effect of one action is the negation of another action. I wish to paint the room entirely blue and entirely red.

Mutex Examples Competing Needs: Two actions have preconditions that are mutex. I wish to sleep and go to class.

Fluent Mutexes Fluents are mutex if all ways of asserting them are mutex. I am presently in Dallas and Denton. What would it mean for some actions (but not all) to be mutex? Or, if one fluent is the negation of another.

Graph Growth Actions monotonically increase. Fluents monotonically increase. Fluent-mutexes monotonically decrease. Action-mutexes monotonically decrease. At some point the graph stops changing.

Theorem The size of the graph, and the time to create it are: polynomial in t (the number of levels) polynomial in n (the number of objects) polynomial in m (the number of actions) polynomial in p (the number of fluents in the goal) O(k(a+n)^2)

SatPlan Express the problem as a CSP (Boolean Sat for example) UseAction(a1, t1) ^ UseAction(a2,t2)... Holds(p1,t1) ^ Holds(p2,t2)... With appropriate constraints. Run this through a Sat Solver

Unifying GraphPlan and SatPlan Create a planning graph, like GraphPlan for k-levels. Convert graph to a CNF wff Run through a Sat Solver. Increase graph to k+1 levels if needed

A Good Idea? A wff from a graph is much smaller than using STRIPS operators. Random restarts used in implementations. Restart threshold gradually increases. SatPlan requires significant preparation time.

Results

Rocket Example Problem two rockets: X1, X2 locations: Earth, Mars, Venus people: Adam, Betty both rockets fueled, and at Earth Adam and Betty on Earth Goal: Adam at Mars, Betty at Venus

Domain Predicates: (at ) (in ) (fueled ) Actions:(load ) (unload ) (fly )

16 Level 1 Actions (load A 1) (load A 2) (load B 1) (load B 2) (F 1 E) (F 1 M) (F 1 V) (F 2 E) (F 2 M) (F 2 V) Plus 6 no-op actions

14 Level 1 Fluents (at A E) (in A 1) (in A 2) (at B E) (in A 1) (in A 2) (at X1 E) (at X1 M) (at X1 V) (at X2 E) (at X2 M) (at X2 V) (fueled 1) (fueled 2)

ResearchDirections planning with preferences cooperative planning distributed planning probabilistic planning planning under uncertainty (SCM, POMDP)