For Monday Read chapter 12, sections 1-2 Homework: –Chapter 10, exercise 3.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Planning II: Partial Order Planning
Advertisements

Causal-link Planning II José Luis Ambite. 2 CS 541 Causal Link Planning II Planning as Search State SpacePlan Space AlgorithmProgression, Regression POP.
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 Graphplan José Luis Ambite * [* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Plan Generation & Causal-Link Planning 1 José Luis Ambite.
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.
For Monday Finish chapter 12 Homework: –Chapter 13, exercises 8 and 15.
Chapter 4 - Planning 4.1 State Space Planning 4.2 Partial Order Planning 4.3Planning in the Real World Part II: Methods of AI.
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.
Artificial Intelligence II S. Russell and P. Norvig Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach Chapter 11: Planning.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [INTELLIGENT AGENTS PARADIGM] Professor Janis Grundspenkis Riga Technical University Faculty of Computer Science and Information.
Planning Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 11.
Artificial Intelligence Chapter 11: Planning
Planning II CSE 473. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Tournament! PS3 – later today Non programming exercises Programming component: (mini project) SPAM detection.
1 Planning Chapters 11 and 12 Thanks: Professor Dan Weld, University of Washington.
Planning II CSE 573. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Reading for Wed Ch 18 thru 18.3 Office Hours No Office Hour Today.
Planning Department of Computer Science & Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
PLANNING Partial order regression planning Temporal representation 1 Deductive planning in Logic Temporal representation 2.
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence CE Chapter 11 – Planning Ramin Halavati In which we see how an agent can take.
Classical Planning Chapter 10.
GraphPlan Alan Fern * * Based in part on slides by Daniel Weld and José Luis Ambite.
For Wednesday Read chapter 12, sections 3-5 Program 2 progress due.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
1 Plan-Space Planning Dr. Héctor Muñoz-Avila Sources: Ch. 5 Appendix A Slides from Dana Nau’s lecture.
1 07. The planning problem 2  Inputs: 1. A description of the world state 2. The goal state description 3. A set of actions  Output: A sequence of actions.
CS.462 Artificial Intelligence SOMCHAI THANGSATHITYANGKUL Lecture 07 : Planning.
Planning, page 1 CSI 4106, Winter 2005 Planning Points Elements of a planning problem Planning as resolution Conditional plans Actions as preconditions.
CPS 270: Artificial Intelligence Planning Instructor: Vincent Conitzer.
For Friday No new reading Logic and Resolution Homework.
For Friday Finish chapter 10 No homework. Program 2 Any questions?
For Friday No reading Homework: –Chapter 11, exercise 4.
CPS 570: Artificial Intelligence Planning Instructor: Vincent Conitzer.
Planning (Chapter 10)
Introduction to Planning Dr. Shazzad Hosain Department of EECS North South Universtiy
Partial Order Planning 1 Brian C. Williams J/6.834J Sept 16 th, 2002 Slides with help from: Dan Weld Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
AI Lecture 17 Planning Noémie Elhadad (substituting for Prof. McKeown)
Partial Order Plan Execution 1 Brian C. Williams J/6.834J Sept. 16 th, 2002 Slides with help from: Dan Weld Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig.
Classical Planning Chapter 10 Mausam / Andrey Kolobov (Based on slides of Dan Weld, Marie desJardins)
Graphplan.
For Monday Make sure you have read chapter 11 through section 3. No homework.
© Daniel S. Weld 1 Logistics Travel Wed class led by Mausam Week’s reading R&N ch17 Project meetings.
Planning I: Total Order Planners Sections
Automated Planning and Decision Making Prof. Ronen Brafman Automated Planning and Decision Making Graphplan Based on slides by: Ambite, Blyth and.
Consider the task get milk, bananas, and a cordless drill.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
1 Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques. 2 Motivation A big source of inefficiency in search algorithms is the branching factor  the number of children.
An Introduction to Artificial Intelligence CE 40417
Planning (Chapter 10) Slides by Svetlana Lazebnik, 9/2016 with modifications by Mark Hasegawa-Johnson, 9/2017
For Wednesday Read Chapter 18, sections 1-3 Homework:
Planning (Chapter 10)
Dana S. Nau University of Maryland 3:10 AM September 12, 2018
Planning (Chapter 10)
Dana S. Nau University of Maryland 1:50 AM September 14, 2018
Class #17 – Thursday, October 27
AI Planning.
Planning José Luis Ambite.
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
For Friday Read Chapter 11, section 3
Class #19 – Monday, November 3
© James D. Skrentny from notes by C. Dyer, et. al.
Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques
Causal-link planning 2 Jim Blythe.
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
GraphPlan Jim Blythe.
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
[* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Presentation transcript:

For Monday Read chapter 12, sections 1-2 Homework: –Chapter 10, exercise 3

Program 2 Any questions?

STRIPS Developed at SRI (formerly Stanford Research Institute) in early 1970's. Just using theorem proving with situation calculus was found to be too inefficient. Introduced STRIPS action representation. Combines ideas from problem solving and theorem proving. Basic backward chaining in state space but solves subgoals independently and then tries to reachieve any clobbered subgoals at the end.

STRIPS Representation Attempt to address the frame problem by defining actions by a precondition, and add list, and a delete list. (Fikes & Nilsson, 1971). –Precondition: logical formula that must be true in order to execute the action. –Add list: List of formulae that become true as a result of the action. –Delete list: List of formulae that become false as result of the action.

Sample Action Puton(x,y) –Precondition: Clear(x) Ù Clear(y) Ù On(x,z) –Add List: {On(x,y), Clear(z)} –Delete List: {Clear(y), On(x,z)}

STRIPS Assumption Every formula that is satisfied before an action is performed and does not belong to the delete list is satisfied in the resulting state. Although Clear(z) implies that On(x,z) must be false, it must still be listed in the delete list explicitly. For action Kill(x,y) must put Alive(y), Breathing(y), Heart­Beating(y), etc. must all be included in the delete list although these deletions are implied by the fact of adding Dead(y)

Subgoal Independence If the goal state is a conjunction of subgoals, search is simplified if goals are assumed independent and solved separately (divide and conquer) Consider a goal of A on B and C on D from 4 blocks all on the table

Subgoal Interaction Achieving different subgoals may interact, the order in which subgoals are solved in this case is important. Consider 3 blocks on the table, goal of A on B and B on C If do puton(A,B) first, cannot do puton(B,C) without undoing (clobbering) subgoal: on(A,B)

Sussman Anomaly Goal of A on B and B on C Starting state of C on A and B on table Either way of ordering subgoals causes clobbering

STRIPS Approach Use resolution theorem prover to try and prove that goal or subgoal is satisfied in the current state. If it is not, use the incomplete proof to find a set of differences between the current and goal state (a set of subgoals). Pick a subgoal to solve and an operator that will achieve that subgoal. Add the precondition of this operator as a new goal and recursively solve it.

STRIPS Algorithm STRIPS(init­state, goals, ops) Let current­state be init­state; For each goal in goals do If goal cannot be proven in current state Pick an operator instance, op, s.t. goal  adds(op); /* Solve preconditions */ STRIPS(current­state, preconds(op), ops); /* Apply operator */ current­state := current­state + adds(op) ­ dels(ops); /* Patch any clobbered goals */ Let rgoals be any goals which are not provable in current­state; STRIPS(current­state, rgoals, ops).

Algorithm Notes The “pick operator instance” step involves a nondeterministic choice that is backtracked to if a dead­end is ever encountered. Employs chronological backtracking (depth­first search), when it reaches a dead­ end, backtrack to last decision point and pursue the next option.

Norvig’s Implementation Simple propositional (no variables) Lisp implementation of STRIPS. #S(OP ACTION (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) PRECONDS ((SPACE ON C) (SPACE ON B) (C ON TABLE)) ADD­LIST ((EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B)) (C ON B)) DEL­LIST ((C ON TABLE) (SPACE ON B))) Commits to first sequence of actions that achieves a subgoal (incomplete search). Prefers actions with the most preconditions satisfied in the current state. Modified to to try and re-achieve any clobbered subgoals (only once).

STRIPS Results ; Invert stack (good goal ordering) > (gps '((a on b)(b on c) (c on table) (space on a) (space on table)) '((b on a) (c on b))) Goal: (B ON A) Consider: (MOVE B FROM C TO A) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (A ON B) Action: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)

Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (B ON C) Action: (MOVE B FROM C TO A) Goal: (C ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (C ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM C TO A)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B)))

; Invert stack (bad goal ordering) > (gps '((a on b)(b on c) (c on table) (space on a) (space on table)) '((c on b)(b on a))) Goal: (C ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Consider: (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (A ON B) Action: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (B ON C) Action: (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE)

Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (C ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (B ON A) Consider: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO A) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (C ON B) Action: (MOVE C FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (B ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO A)

Must reachieve clobbered goals: ((C ON B)) Goal: (C ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (C ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO A)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B)))

STRIPS on Sussman Anomaly > (gps '((c on a)(a on table)( b on table) (space on c) (space on b) (space on table)) '((a on b)(b on c))) Goal: (A ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Consider: (MOVE C FROM A TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (C ON A) Action: (MOVE C FROM A TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (A ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (B ON C)

Consider: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (A ON B) Action: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (B ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C) Must reachieve clobbered goals: ((A ON B)) Goal: (A ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)

Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (A ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM A TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)))

How Long Do 4 Blocks Take? ;; Stack four clear blocks (good goal ordering) > (time (gps '((a on table)(b on table) (c on table) (d on table)(space on a) (space on b) (space on c) (space on d)(space on table)) '((c on d)(b on c)(a on b)))) User Run Time = 0.00 seconds ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO D)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)))

;; Stack four clear blocks (bad goal ordering) > (time (gps '((a on table)(b on table) (c on table) (d on table)(space on a) (space on b) (space on c) (space on d)(space on table)) '((a on b)(b on c) (c on d)))) User Run Time = 0.06 seconds ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO D)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)))

State-Space Planners State­space (situation space) planning algorithms search through the space of possible states of the world searching for a path that solves the problem. They can be based on progression: a forward search from the initial state looking for the goal state. Or they can be based on regression: a backward search from the goals towards the initial state STRIPS is an incomplete regression­based algorithm.

Plan-Space Planners Plan­space planners search through the space of partial plans, which are sets of actions that may not be totally ordered. Partial­order planners are plan­based and only introduce ordering constraints as necessary (least commitment) in order to avoid unnecessarily searching through the space of possible orderings

Partial Order Plan Plan which does not specify unnecessary ordering. Consider the problem of putting on your socks and shoes.

Plans A plan is a three tuple –A: A set of actions in the plan, {A 1,A 2,...A n } –O: A set of ordering constraints on actions {A i <A j, A k <A l,...A m <A n }. These must be consistent, i.e. there must be at least one total ordering of actions in A that satisfy all the constraints. –L: a set of causal links showing how actions support each other

Causal Links and Threats A causal link, A p  Q A c, indicates that action A p has an effect Q that achieves precondition Q for action A c. A threat, is an action A t that can render a causal link A p  Q A c ineffective because: –O  {A P < A t < A c } is consistent –A t has ¬Q as an effect

Threat Removal Threats must be removed to prevent a plan from failing Demotion adds the constraint A t < A p to prevent clobbering, i.e. push the clobberer before the producer Promotion adds the constraint A c < A t to prevent clobbering, i.e. push the clobberer after the consumer

Initial (Null) Plan Initial plan has –A={ A 0, A  } –O={A 0 < A  } –L ={} A 0 (Start) has no preconditions but all facts in the initial state as effects. A  (Finish) has the goal conditions as preconditions and no effects.

Example Op( Action: Go(there); Precond: At(here); Effects: At(there), ¬At(here) ) Op( Action: Buy(x), Precond: At(store), Sells(store,x); Effects: Have(x) ) A 0 : –At(Home) Sells(SM,Banana) Sells(SM,Milk) Sells(HWS,Drill) A  –Have(Drill) Have(Milk) Have(Banana) At(Home)

POP Algorithm Stated as a nondeterministic algorithm where choices must be made. Various search methods can be used to explore the space of possible choices. Maintains an agenda of goals that need to be supported by links, where an agenda element is a pair where Q is a precondition of A i that needs supporting. Initialize plan to null plan and agenda to conjunction of goals (preconditions of Finish). Done when all preconditions of every action in plan are supported by causal links which are not threatened.

POP(, agenda) 1) Termination: If agenda is empty, return. Use topological sort to determine a totally ordered plan. 2) Goal Selection: Let be a pair on the agenda 3) Action Selection: Let A add be a nondeterministically chosen action that adds Q. It can be an existing action in A or a new action. If there is no such action return failure. L ’ = L  {A add  Q A need } O ’ = O  {A add < A need } if A add is new then A ’ = A  {A add } and O ’ =O ’ È {A 0 < A add <A  } else A ’ = A

4) Update goal set: Let agenda ’ = agenda - { } If A add is new then for each conjunct Q i of its precondition, add to agenda ’ 5) Causal link protection: For every action A t that threatens a causal link A p  Q A c add an ordering constraint by choosing nondeterministically either (a) Demotion: Add A t < A p to O ’ (b) Promotion: Add A c < A t to O ’ If neither constraint is consistent then return failure. 6) Recurse: POP(, agenda ’ )

Example Op( Action: Go(there); Precond: At(here); Effects: At(there), ¬At(here) ) Op( Action: Buy(x), Precond: At(store), Sells(store,x); Effects: Have(x) ) A 0 : –At(Home) Sells(SM,Banana) Sells(SM,Milk) Sells(HWS,Drill) A  –Have(Drill) Have(Milk) Have(Banana) At(Home)

Example Steps Add three buy actions to achieve the goals Use initial state to achieve the Sells preconditions Then add Go actions to achieve new pre- conditions

Handling Threat Cannot resolve threat to At(Home) preconditions of both Go(HWS) and Go(SM). Must backtrack to supporting At(x) precondition of Go(SM) from initial state At(Home) and support it instead from the At(HWS) effect of Go(HWS). Since Go(SM) still threatens At(HWS) of Buy(Drill) must promote Go(SM) to come after Buy(Drill). Demotion is not possible due to causal link supporting At(HWS) precondition of Go(SM)

Example Continued Add Go(Home) action to achieve At(Home) Use At(SM) to achieve its precondition Order it after Buy(Milk) and Buy(Banana) to resolve threats to At(SM)

GraphPlan Alternative approach to plan construction Uses STRIPS operators with some limitations –Conjunctive preconditions –No negated preconditions –No conditional effects –No universal effects

Planning Graph Creates a graph of constraints on the plan Then searches for the subgraph that constitutes the plan itself

Graph Form Directed, leveled graph –2 types of nodes: Proposition: P Action: A –3 types of edges (between levels) Precondition: P -> A Add: A -> P Delete: A -> P Proposition and action levels alternate Action level includes actions whose preconditions are satisfied in previous level plus no-op actions (to solve frame problem).

Planning graph … … …

Constructing the planning graph Level P 1 : all literals from the initial state Add an action in level A i if all its preconditions are present in level P i Add a precondition in level P i if it is the effect of some action in level A i-1 (including no-ops) Maintain a set of exclusion relations to eliminate incompatible propositions and actions (thus reducing the graph size)

Mutual Exclusion relations Two actions (or literals) are mutually exclusive (mutex) at some stage if no valid plan could contain both. Two actions are mutex if: –Interference: one clobbers others’ effect or precondition –Competing needs: mutex preconditions Two propositions are mutex if: –All ways of achieving them are mutex

Mutual Exclusion relations Inconsistent Effects Inconsistent Support Competing Needs Interference (prec-effect)

Dinner Date example Initial Conditions: (and (garbage) (cleanHands) (quiet)) Goal: (and (dinner) (present) (not (garbage)) Actions: –Cook :precondition (cleanHands) :effect (dinner) –Wrap :precondition (quiet) :effect (present) –Carry :precondition :effect (and (not (garbage)) (not (cleanHands)) –Dolly :precondition :effect (and (not (garbage)) (not (quiet)))

Dinner Date example

Observation 1 Propositions monotonically increase (always carried forward by no-ops) p ¬q ¬r p q ¬q ¬r p q ¬q r ¬r p q ¬q r ¬r A A B A B

Observation 2 Actions monotonically increase p ¬q ¬r p q ¬q ¬r p q ¬q r ¬r p q ¬q r ¬r A A B A B

Observation 3 Proposition mutex relationships monotonically decrease pqr…pqr… A pqr…pqr… pqr…pqr…

Observation 4 Action mutex relationships monotonically decrease pq…pq… B pqrs…pqrs… pqrs…pqrs… A C B C A pqrs…pqrs… B C A

Observation 5 Planning Graph ‘levels off’. After some time k all levels are identical Because it’s a finite space, the set of literals never decreases and mutexes don’t reappear.

Valid plan A valid plan is a planning graph where: Actions at the same level don’t interfere Each action’s preconditions are made true by the plan Goals are satisfied

GraphPlan algorithm Grow the planning graph (PG) until all goals are reachable and not mutex. (If PG levels off first, fail) Search the PG for a valid plan If none is found, add a level to the PG and try again

Searching for a solution plan Backward chain on the planning graph Achieve goals level by level At level k, pick a subset of non-mutex actions to achieve current goals. Their preconditions become the goals for k-1 level. Build goal subset by picking each goal and choosing an action to add. Use one already selected if possible. Do forward checking on remaining goals (backtrack if can’t pick non- mutex action)

Plan Graph Search If goals are present & non-mutex: Choose action to achieve each goal Add preconditions to next goal set

Termination for unsolvable problems Graphplan records (memoizes) sets of unsolvable goals: –U(i,t) = unsolvable goals at level i after stage t. More efficient: early backtracking Also provides necessary and sufficient conditions for termination: –Assume plan graph levels off at level n, stage t > n –If U(n, t-1) = U(n, t) then we know we’re in a loop and can terminate safely.

Dinner Date example Initial Conditions: (and (garbage) (cleanHands) (quiet)) Goal: (and (dinner) (present) (not (garbage)) Actions: –Cook :precondition (cleanHands) :effect (dinner) –Wrap :precondition (quiet) :effect (present) –Carry :precondition :effect (and (not (garbage)) (not (cleanHands)) –Dolly :precondition :effect (and (not (garbage)) (not (quiet)))

Dinner Date example