chapter

Experimental Evaluation of a Planning Language Suitable for Formal Verification

Authors:

Radu I. Siminiceanu,

Rick W. Butler,

César A. MuñozAuthors Info & Claims

Model Checking and Artificial Intelligence: 5th International Workshop, MoChArt 2008, Patras, Greece, July 21, 2008. Revised Selected and Invited Papers

February 2009

Pages 132 - 146

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00431-5_9

Published: 25 February 2009 Publication History

Abstract

The marriage of model checking and planning faces two seemingly diverging alternatives: the need for a planning language expressive enough to capture the complexity of real-life applications, as opposed to a language simple, yet robust enough to be amenable to exhaustive verification and validation techniques. In an attempt to reconcile these differences, we have designed an abstract plan description language, ANMLite, inspired from the Action Notation Modeling Language (ANML). We present the basic concepts of the ANMLite language as well as an automatic translator from ANMLite to the model checker SAL (Symbolic Analysis Laboratory). We discuss various aspects of specifying a plan in terms of constraints and explore the implications of choosing a robust logic behind the specification of constraints, rather than simply propose a new planning language. Additionally, we provide an initial assessment of the efficiency of model checking to search for solutions of planning problems. To this end, we design a basic test benchmark and study the scalability of the generated SAL models in terms of plan complexity.

References

[1]

Allen, J.F., Ferguson, G.: Actions and Events in Interval Temporal Logic. Technical Report TR521, University of Rochester (1994).

Digital Library

[2]

Bedrax-Weiss, T., McGann, C., Bachmann, A., Edington, W., Iatauro, M.: EUROPA2: User and Contributor Guide. Technical report, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA (February 2005).

[3]

Butler, R.W., Muñoz, C.A.: An Abstract Plan Preparation Language. Report 214518, NASA Langley, Hampton VA 23681-2199, USA (2006).

[4]

Butler, R.W., Siminiceanu, R.I., Muño, C.A.: The ANMLite language and logic for specifying planning problems. Report 215088, NASA Langley, Hampton VA 23681-2199, USA (November 2007).

[5]

Cimatti, A., Giunchiglia, F., Giunchiglia, E., Traverso, P.: Planning via model checking: a decision procedure for AR. In: Steel, S. (ed.) ECP 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1348, pp. 130-142. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).

[6]

de Moura, L., Dutertre, B.: Yices 1.0: An Efficient SMT Solver. Technical report, SRI International, SMCOMP (2006), http://yices.csl.sri.com

[7]

de Moura, L., Owre, S., Shankar, N.: The SAL Language Manual. Technical Report SRI-CSL-01-02, CSL Technical Report (2003).

[8]

Drusinsky, D., Watney, G.: Applying Run-Time Monitoring to the Deep-Impact Fault Protection Engine. In: 28th IEEE/NASA Software Engineering Workshop, p. 127 (2003).

[9]

Edelkamp, S.: Heuristic search planning with BDDs. In: PuK (2000).

[10]

Feather, M.S., Smith, B.: Automatic Generation of Test Oracles - From Pilot Studies to Application. Automated Software Eng. 8(1), 31-61 (2001).

[11]

Ferraris, P., Giunchiglia, E.: Planning as satisfiability in nondeterministic domains. In: AAAI, pp. 748-753 (2000).

[12]

Frank, J., Jonsson, A.: Constraint-based Attribute and Interval Planning. Journal of Constraints 8, 339-364 (2003).

[13]

Hoey, J., St-Aubin, R., Hu, A., Boutilier, C.: SPUDD: Stochastic planning using decision diagrams. In: Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1999), pp. 279- 288 (1999).

[14]

Lomuscio, A., Pecheur, C., Raimondi, F.: Automatic Verification of Knowledge and Time with NuSMV. In: IJCAI, pp. 1384-1389 (2007).

[15]

Drew McDermott and AIPS 1998 IPC Committee. PDDL - the Planning Domain Definition Language. Technical report, Yale University (1998).

[16]

Owre, S., Shankar, N.: Formal Analysis Methods for Spacecraft Autonomy, Final Report. Technical Report SRI-17625, SRI International (2007).

[17]

Pecheur, C., Raimondi, F.: Symbolic model checking of logics with actions. In: Edelkamp, S., Lomuscio, A. (eds.) MoChArt IV. LNCS, vol. 4428, pp. 113-128. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).

[18]

Sheini, H.M., Peintner, B., Sakallah, K.A., Pollack, M.E.: On solving soft temporal constraints using SAT techniques. In: van Beek, P. (ed.) CP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3709, pp. 607-621. Springer, Heidelberg (2005).

[19]

Smith, D.E., Frank, J., Jonsson, A.K.: Bridging the Gap between Planning and Scheduling. The Knowledge Engineering Rev. 15(1), 113-128 (2000).

[20]

Smith, D.E., Frank, J., McGann, C.: The ANML Language. Technical report, NASA Ames, unpublished report (2006).

Cited By

Kauffman SHavelund KJoshi RFischmeister S(2018)Inferring event stream abstractionsFormal Methods in System Design10.1007/s10703-018-0317-z53:1(54-82)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10703-018-0317-z
Cimatti AMicheli ARoveri MSingh SMarkovitch S(2017)Validating domains and plans for temporal planning via encoding into infinite-state linear temporal logicProceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3298023.3298084(3547-3554)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3298023.3298084

Experimental Evaluation of a Planning Language Suitable for Formal Verification

Recommendations

Formal verification of ASMs using MDGs

We present a framework for the formal verification of abstract state machine (ASM) designs using the multiway decision graphs (MDG) tool. ASM is a state based language for describing transition systems. MDG provides symbolic representation of transition ...
Coverage metrics for formal verification

In formal verification, we verify that a system is correct with respect to a specification. Even when the system is proven to be correct, there is still a question of how complete the specification is and whether it really covers all the behaviors of ...
Formal verification of a realistic compiler
Barbara Liskov: ACM's A.M. Turing Award Winner

This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide books

Model Checking and Artificial Intelligence: 5th International Workshop, MoChArt 2008, Patras, Greece, July 21, 2008. Revised Selected and Invited Papers

February 2009

188 pages

ISBN:9783642004308

Editors:
Doron A. Peled
Department of Computer Science, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel 52900
,
Michael J. Wooldridge
Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK L69 3BX

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 25 February 2009

Qualifiers

Chapter

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kauffman SHavelund KJoshi RFischmeister S(2018)Inferring event stream abstractionsFormal Methods in System Design10.1007/s10703-018-0317-z53:1(54-82)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10703-018-0317-z
Cimatti AMicheli ARoveri MSingh SMarkovitch S(2017)Validating domains and plans for temporal planning via encoding into infinite-state linear temporal logicProceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3298023.3298084(3547-3554)Online publication date: 4-Feb-2017
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3298023.3298084

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Chapter

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents