Planning 2 (SATPLAN) CSE 573. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Ways to make “plans” Generative Planning Reason from first principles (knowledge of actions) Requires.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
REVIEW : Planning To make your thinking more concrete, use a real problem to ground your discussion. –Develop a plan for a person who is getting out of.
Advertisements

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.
State Transition Systems  linear planning  bounded model checking  conditional planning  model checking  state transition description languages: oPDDL.
SAT-Based Planning Using Propositional SAT- Solvers to Search for Plans.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
1 Graphplan José Luis Ambite * [* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Situation Calculus for Action Descriptions We talked about STRIPS representations for actions. Another common representation is called the Situation Calculus.
Methods of Proof Chapter 7, second half.. Proof methods Proof methods divide into (roughly) two kinds: Application of inference rules: Legitimate (sound)
CPSC 422, Lecture 21Slide 1 Intelligent Systems (AI-2) Computer Science cpsc422, Lecture 21 Mar, 4, 2015 Slide credit: some slides adapted from Stuart.
Planning with Constraints Graphplan & SATplan Yongmei Shi.
1 Planning as X X  {SAT, CSP, ILP, …} José Luis Ambite* [* Some slides are taken from presentations by Kautz, Selman, Weld, and Kambhampati. Please visit.
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 Classical STRIPS Planning Alan Fern * * Based in part on slides by Daniel Weld.
Planning Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 11.
CSE 5731 Lecture 21 State-Space Search vs. Constraint- Based Planning CSE 573 Artificial Intelligence I Henry Kautz Fall 2001.
Logic Programs and Classical Planning with LTL Constraints Ravi Palla Advisor:J Benton.
Planning CSE 473. © Daniel S. Weld Topics Agency Problem Spaces Search Knowledge Representation Reinforcement Learning InferencePlanning Supervised.
Methods of Proof Chapter 7, second half.
Knowledge Representation II CSE 573. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Reading for Monday ??? Office Hours No Office Hour Next Monday (10/25) Bonus Office.
Planning II CSE 473. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Tournament! PS3 – later today Non programming exercises Programming component: (mini project) SPAM detection.
Search in the semantic domain. Some definitions atomic formula: smallest formula possible (no sub- formulas) literal: atomic formula or negation of an.
Last time Proof-system search ( ` ) Interpretation search ( ² ) Quantifiers Equality Decision procedures Induction Cross-cutting aspectsMain search strategy.
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.
Knowledge Representation II (Inference in Propositional Logic) CSE 473 Continued…
Planning as Satisfiability CSE 574 April 8, 2003 Dan Weld.
1 Planning Chapters 11 and 12 Thanks: Professor Dan Weld, University of Washington.
Dynamic Bayesian Networks CSE 473. © Daniel S. Weld Topics Agency Problem Spaces Search Knowledge Representation Reinforcement Learning InferencePlanningLearning.
Classical Planning via State-space search COMP3431 Malcolm Ryan.
Planning II CSE 573. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Reading for Wed Ch 18 thru 18.3 Office Hours No Office Hour Today.
Planning as Satisfiability CS Outline 0. Overview of Planning 1. Modeling and Solving Planning Problems as SAT - SATPLAN 2. Improved Encodings using.
Logical Foundations of AI Planning as Satisfiability Clause Learning Backdoors to Hardness Henry Kautz.
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.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
CSE 473 Automated Planning Dan Weld (With slides by UW AI faculty & Dana Nau I have a plan - a plan that cannot possibly fail. - Inspector Clousseau.
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.
Explorations in Artificial Intelligence Prof. Carla P. Gomes Module 3 Logic Representations (Part 2)
Solvers for the Problem of Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) Will Klieber Aug 31, 2011 TexPoint fonts used in EMF. Read the TexPoint manual before you.
1 Agenda Modeling problems in Propositional Logic SAT basics Decision heuristics Non-chronological Backtracking Learning with Conflict Clauses SAT and.
1 The LPSAT Engine and its Application to Metric Planning Steve Wolfman University of Washington CS&E Advisor: Dan Weld.
Open-Loop Planning as Satisfiability Henry Kautz AT&T Labs.
Planning as Propositional Satisfiabililty Brian C. Williams Oct. 30 th, J/6.834J GSAT, Graphplan and WalkSAT Based on slides from Bart Selman.
Analyzing relational logic Daniel Jackson, MIT WG 2.3 · Newcastle April 2000.
Explorations in Artificial Intelligence Prof. Carla P. Gomes Module Logic Representations.
CS 5411 Compilation Approaches to AI Planning 1 José Luis Ambite* Some slides are taken from presentations by Kautz and Selman. Please visit their.
CSE 473 Automated Planning Dan Weld (With slides by UW AI faculty & Dana Nau I have a plan - a plan that cannot possibly fail. - Inspector Clousseau.
CPSC 422, Lecture 21Slide 1 Intelligent Systems (AI-2) Computer Science cpsc422, Lecture 21 Oct, 30, 2015 Slide credit: some slides adapted from Stuart.
© Daniel S. Weld 1 Logistics PS3 Project Additional problem Reading Planning & CSP for “today” SAT plan paper review for Wed.
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.
Heuristics for Efficient SAT Solving As implemented in GRASP, Chaff and GSAT.
Graphplan CSE 574 April 4, 2003 Dan Weld. Schedule BASICS Intro Graphplan SATplan State-space Refinement SPEEDUP EBL & DDB Heuristic Gen TEMPORAL Partial-O.
AAAI of 20 Deconstructing Planning as Satisfiability Henry Kautz University of Rochester in collaboration with Bart Selman and Jöerg Hoffmann.
Local Search Methods for SAT Geoffrey Levine March 11, 2004.
Inference in Propositional Logic (and Intro to SAT) CSE 473.
A Decision-Making Procedure for Resolution-Based SAT-solvers Eugene Goldberg Cadence Research Labs (USA) SAT-2008, Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Inference in Propositional Logic (and Intro to SAT)
Fast Propositional Algorithms for Planning
Planning as Satisfiability
Planning as Search State Space Plan Space Algorihtm Progression
Classical Planning via State-space search
Review for the Midterm Exam
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
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Planning as Satisfiability
Planning CSE 573 A handful of GENERAL SEARCH TECHNIQUES lie at the heart of practically all work in AI We will encounter the SAME PRINCIPLES again and.
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
[* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Presentation transcript:

Planning 2 (SATPLAN) CSE 573

© Daniel S. Weld 2 Ways to make “plans” Generative Planning Reason from first principles (knowledge of actions) Requires formal model of actions Case-Based Planning Retrieve old plan which worked on similar problem Revise retrieved plan for this problem Reinforcement Learning Act ”randomly” - noticing effects Learn reward, action models, policy

© Daniel S. Weld 3 Generative Planning Input Description of (initial state of) world (in some KR) Description of goal (in some KR) Description of available actions (in some KR) Output Controller E.g. Sequence of actions E.g. Plan with loops and conditionals E.g. Policy = f: states -> actions

© Daniel S. Weld 4 Input Representation Description of initial state of world E.g., Set of propositions: ((block a) (block b) (block c) (on-table a) (on-table b) (clear a) (clear b) (clear c) (arm-empty)) Description of goal: i.e. set of worlds or ?? E.g., Logical conjunction Any world satisfying conjunction is a goal (and (on a b) (on b c))) Description of available actions

© Daniel S. Weld 5 Classical Planning Environment Static Fully Observable Deterministic Instantaneous Full Perfect I = initial state G = goal state OiOi (prec)(effects) [ I ] OiOi OjOj OkOk OmOm [ G ]

© Daniel S. Weld 6 Compilation to SAT Init state Actions Goal ? 

© Daniel S. Weld 7 The Idea Suppose a plan of length n exists Encode this hypothesis in SAT Init state true at t 0 Goal true at T n Actions imply effects, etc Look for satisfying assignment Decode into plan RISC: The Revolutionary Excitement

© Daniel S. Weld 8 History Green IJCAI-69 STRIPS AIJ-71 Decades of work on “specialized theorem provers” Kautz+Selman ECAI-92 Rapid progress on SAT solving Kautz+Selman AAAI-96 Electrifying results (on hand coded formulae) Kautz, McAllester & Selman KR-96 Variety of encodings (but no compiler) CSE 573 => Ernst et al. IJCAI-97

© Daniel S. Weld 9 Blackbox Blackbox solves planning problems by converting them into SAT. Very fast Initially hand copiled SAT; later… Tried different solvers Local search (GSAT) Systematic search with EBL (RelSAT) In 2000, GP-CSP could beat Blackbox But in 2001, a newer “SUPER-DUPER” SAT solver called CHAFF was developed, CSP people are trying to copy over the ideas from CHAFF to CSP. In 2004, Blackbox…

© Daniel S. Weld 10 Medic Init state Actions Goal Plan Planner Compiler Logic Simplification Decoder SAT Solver

© Daniel S. Weld 11 Axioms AxiomDescription / Example InitThe initial state holds at t=0 GoalThe goal holds at t=2n A  P, EPaint(A,Red,t)  Block(A, t-1) Paint(A,Red,t)  Color(A, Red, t+1) FrameClassical / Explanatory At-least-oneAct1(…, t)  Act2(…, t)  … Exclude  Act1(…, t)   Act2(…, t)

© Daniel S. Weld 12 Space of Encodings Action Representations Regular Simply-Split Overloaded-Split Bitwise Frame Axioms Classical Explanitory

© Daniel S. Weld 13 Frame Axioms Classical  P, A, t if   A doesn’t affect P then Explanatory  P, A, t if   then A  A  … forall A i that do affect P

© Daniel S. Weld 14 Action Representation Regularfully-instantiated actionPaint-A-Red, Paint-A-Blue, Move-A-Table RepresentationOne Propositional Variable per Example Simply-splitfully-instantiated action’s argument Paint-Arg1-A  Paint-Arg2-Red Overloaded-splitfully-instantiated argument Act-Paint  Arg1-A  Arg2-Red more vars more clses BitwiseBinary encodings of actions Bit1  ~Bit2  Bit3 Paint-A-Red = 5

© Daniel S. Weld 15 Main Ideas Clear taxonomy Utility of Explanatory frame axioms (most things don’t change) Parallelism & conflict exclusion Type inference Domain axioms Surprising Effectiveness of regular action encodings

© Daniel S. Weld 16 Comparison Among Encodings Explanatory Frames beat classical -few actions affect each fluent -explanatory frames aid simplifications Parallelism is a major factor -fewer mutual exclusion clauses -fewer time steps Regular actions representation is smallest! -exploits full parallelism -aids simplification Overloaded, bitwise reps. are infeasible -prohibitively many clauses -sharing hinders simplification

© Daniel S. Weld 17 Optimization 1: Factored Splitting - use partially-instantiated actions HasColor-A-Blue-(t-1) ^ Paint-Arg1-B-t ^ Paint-Arg2-Red-t  HasColor-A-Blue-(t+1) SimpleOverloaded Variables Clauses Literals factored unfactored Explanatory Frames

© Daniel S. Weld 18 Optimization 2: Types A type is a fluent which no actions affects. type interference prune impossible operator instantiations type elimination Classical Explanatory Type opts No type opts Literals RegularSimpleOverloadedBitwise

© Daniel S. Weld 19 Domain-Specific Axioms Adding domain-specific axioms increases clauses decreases variables decreases solve time dramatically <.05 VarsClausesTime a b c domain info no domain info bw- large

© Daniel S. Weld 20 Future Work Negation, disjunctive preconds,  Domain axioms  t clear(x, t)    y on(y, x, t)

© Daniel S. Weld 21 Future Work Automatically choose best encoding Might do this for frame axioms Analyze SAT formulae structure Generate WalkSAT params Which SAT solver works best (DPLL vs ? Handle continuous vars (resource planning) Steve Wolfman’s quals project, IJCAI99

© Daniel S. Weld 22 Future Work Reachability analysis Domain axioms Compilation to …? CSP LP (Linear programming) Integer LP SAT + LP

© Daniel S. Weld 23 Domain Axioms Domain knowledge Synchronic vs. Diachronic constraints Speedup knowledge Action conflicts (=> by action schemata alone) Domain invariants (=> by initial state+schemata) Optimality heuristics Simplifying assumptions