Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
article

Planning as satisfiability with IPC simple preferences and action costs

Published: 01 October 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Planning as Satisfiability SAT is currently the best approach for optimally wrt makespan solving classical planning problems and the extension of this framework to include preferences is nowadays considered the reference approach to compute “optimal” plans in SAT-based planning. It includes reasoning about soft goals and plans length as introduced in the 2006 and 2008 editions of the International Planning Competitions IPCs. Despite the fact that the planning as satisfiability with preferences framework has helped to enhance the applicability of the SAT-based approach in planning, the actual approach used within the framework somehow suffers from some main limitations: the metrics, i.e. linear optimization functions defined over goals and/or actions, which account for plan quality issues, are fully reduced to SAT formulas, further increasing the size of often already big formulas; moreover, the search for optimal solutions is performed by forcing a heuristic ordering.In this paper we address these issues by reducing the IPC planning problems with soft goals from IPC-5 and/or action costs from IPC-6 to optimization problems extending SAT and that can naturally handle the integer “weights” of the metrics, i.e. to Max-SAT and Pseudo-Boolean PB problems. Our idea is partially motivated by the approach followed by IPPLAN in the deterministic part of the IPC-5 and by the recent availability of efficient Max-SAT and PB solvers. First, we prove that our approach is correct; then, we implement these ideas in SATPLAN and run a wide experimental analysis on planning problems from IPC-5 and IPC-6, taking as references state-of-the-art planners on these competitions and the previous SAT-based approach. Our analysis shows that our approach is competitive and helps to further widen the set of benchmarks that a SAT-based framework can efficiently deal with. At the same time, as a side effect of this analysis, challenging Max-SAT and PB benchmarks have been identified, as well as the Max-SAT and PB solvers performing best on these planning problems.

References

[1]
T. Achterberg, T. Berthold, T. Koch and K. Wolter, Constraint integer programming: A new approach to integrate CP and MIP, in: Proc. of the 5th International Conference Integration of AI and OR Techniques in Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization Problems (CPAIOR 2008), Paris, France, L. Perron and M.A. Trick, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5015, Springer, 2008, pp. 6-20.
[2]
J. Argelich, C.M. Li and F. Manyà, An improved exact solver for partial Max-SAT, in: Proc. of the International Conference on Nonconvex Programming: Local and Global Approaches (NCP-2007), Rouen, France, 2007, pp. 230-231.
[3]
O. Bailleux and Y. Boufkhad, Efficient CNF encoding of Boolean cardinality constraints, in: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 2003), Kinsale, Ireland, F. Rossi, ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2833, Springer, 2003, pp.108-122.
[4]
J. Benton, S. Kambhampati and M.B. Do, YochanPS: PDDL3 simple preferences and partial satisfaction planning, in: 5th International Planning Competition Booklet, 2006, pp. 23-25, available at: http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/booklet/i06-ipc-allpapers.pdf.
[5]
C. Boutilier, R.I. Brafman, C. Domshlak, H.H. Hoos and D. Poole, CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21(2004), 135-191.
[6]
R.I. Brafman and Y. Chernyavsky, Planning with goal preferences and constraints, in: Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2005), Monterey, CA, USA, S. Biundo, K.L.Myers and K. Rajan, eds, AAAI Press, 2005, pp. 182-191.
[7]
M. Büttner and J. Rintanen, Satisfiability planning with constraints on the number of actions, in: Proc. of the 15th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2005), Monterey, CA, USA, S. Biundo, K.L. Myers and K. Rajan, eds, AAAI Press, 2005, pp. 292-299.
[8]
Y. Chen, R. Huang, Z. Xing and W. Zhang, Long-distance mutual exclusion for planning, Artificial Intelligence 173(2) (2009), 365-391.
[9]
Y. Chen, Q. Lv and R. Huang, Plan-A: A cost-optimal planner based on SAT-constrained optimization, in: IPC-6, 2008, available at: http://ipc.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/Planners?action= AttachFile& do=view&target=Plan-A.pdf.
[10]
Y. Chen, Z. Xing and W. Zhang, Long-distance mutual exclusion for propositional planning, in: Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, India, M.M. Veloso, ed., 2007, pp. 1840-1845.
[11]
M.B. Do and S. Kambhampati, Planning as constraint satisfaction: Solving the planning graph by compiling it into CSP, Artificial Intelligence 132(2) (2001), 151-182.
[12]
S. Edelkamp and P. Kissmann, Optimal symbolic planning with action costs and preferences, in: Proc. of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2009), Pasadena, CA, USA, C. Boutilier, ed., 2009, pp. 1690-1695.
[13]
N. Eén and N. Sörensson, Translating pseudo-Boolean constraints into SAT, Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(2006), 1-26.
[14]
R. Fikes and N.J. Nilsson, STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving, Artificial Intelligence 2(3,4) (1971), 189-208.
[15]
B.C. Gazen and C.A. Knoblock, Combining the expressivity of UCPOP with the efficiency of Graphplan, in: Proc. of the 4th European Conference on Planning (ECP 1997): Recent Advances in AI Planning, Toulouse, France, S. Steel and R. Alami, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1348, Springer, 1997, pp. 221-233.
[16]
A. Gerevini, P. Haslum, D. Long, A. Saetti and Y. Dimopoulos, Deterministic planning in the 5th IPC: PDDL3 and experimental evaluation of the planners, Artificial Intelligence 173(5,6) (2009), 619-668.
[17]
A. Gerevini, A. Saetti and I. Serina, Planning through stochastic local search and temporal action graphs in LPG, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20(2003), 239-290.
[18]
A. Gerevini, A. Saetti and I. Serina, An approach to efficient planning with numerical fluents and multi-criteria plan quality, Artificial Intelligence 172(8,9) (2008), 899-944.
[19]
A. Gerevini and I. Serina, LPG: A planner based on local search for planning graphs with action costs, in: Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS 2002), Toulouse, France, M. Ghallab, J. Hertzberg and P. Traverso, eds, AAAI Press, 2002, pp. 13-22.
[20]
E. Giunchiglia and M. Maratea, Planning as satisfiability with preferences, in: Proc. of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, BC, Canada, AAAI Press, 2007, pp. 987-992.
[21]
E. Giunchiglia and M. Maratea, A pseudo-Boolean approach for solving planning problems with ipc simple preferences, in: Proc. of COPLAS'2010: ICAPS 2010 Workshop on Constraint Satisfaction Techniques for Planning and Scheduling Problems, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2010, pp. 23-32.
[22]
E. Giunchiglia and M. Maratea, Introducing preferences in planning and satisfiability, Journal of Logic and Computation 21(2) (2011), 205-229.
[23]
E. Giunchiglia and M. Maratea, Solving optimization problems with DLL, in: Proc. of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), Riva del Garda, Italy, G. Brewka, S. Coradeschi, A. Perini and P. Traverso, eds, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 141, IOS Press, 2006, pp. 377-381.
[24]
F. Heras, J. Larrosa and A. Oliveras, MiniMaxSAT: A new weighted Max-SAT solver, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31(2008), 1-32.
[25]
J. Hoffmann, The Metric-FF planning system: Translating "ignoring delete lists" to numeric state variables, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20(2003), 291-341.
[26]
J. Hoffmann and S. Edelkamp, The deterministic part of IPC-4: An overview, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24 (2005), 519-579.
[27]
J. Hoffmann and B. Nebel, The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14(2001), 253-302.
[28]
C.-W. Hsu, B.W. Wah, R. Huang and Y. Chen, New features in SGPlan for handling preferences and constraints in PDDL3.0, in: 5th International Planning Competition Booklet, 2006, pp. 39-41, available at: http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/booklet/i06-ipc-allpapers.pdf.
[29]
C.-W. Hsu, B.W. Wah, R. Huang and Y. Chen, Constraint partitioning for solving planning problems with trajectory constraints and goal preferences, in: Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, India, M.M. Veloso, ed., 2007, pp. 1924-1929.
[30]
R. Huang, Y. Chen and W. Zhang, A novel transition based encoding scheme for planning as satisfiability, in: Proc. of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2010), Atlanta, GA, USA, AAAI Press, 2010.
[31]
ILOG CPLEX 8.0 Users' Manual, ILOG Inc., Mountain Wiew, CA, 2002.
[32]
P. Jackson and D. Sheridan, Clause form conversions for Boolean circuits, in: Proc. of the 7th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2004), H.H. Hoos and D.G. Mitchell, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3542, Springer, 2005, pp. 183-198.
[33]
M. Järvisalo, T.A. Junttila and I. Niemelä, Unrestricted vs restricted cut in a tableau method for Boolean circuits, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44(4) (2005), 373-399.
[34]
H. Kautz and B. Selman, Planning as satisfiability, in: Proc. of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1992), Vienna, Austria, B. Neumann, ed., Wiley, 1992, pp. 359-363.
[35]
H. Kautz and B. Selman, Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning, in: Proc. of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), T. Dean, ed., Morgan-Kaufmann, 1999, pp. 318-325.
[36]
H. Kautz and B. Selman, SATPLAN04: Planning as satisfiability, in: 5th International Planning Competition Booklet, 2006, pp. 45-47, available at: http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/booklet/i06-ipc-allpapers.pdf.
[37]
E. Keyder and H. Geffner, Soft goals can be compiled away, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 36(2009), 547-556.
[38]
C.M. Li, F. Manyà, N.O. Mohamedou and J. Planes, Exploiting cycle structures in Max-SAT, in: Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2009), Swansea, UK, O. Kullmann, ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5584, Springer, 2009, pp. 467-480.
[39]
H. Lin and K. Su, Exploiting inference rules to compute lower bounds for Max-SAT solving, in: Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2007), Hyderabad, India, M.M. Veloso, ed., 2007, pp. 2334-2339.
[40]
H. Lin, K. Su and C.M. Li, Within-problem learning for efficient lower bound computation in Max-SAT solving, in: Proc. of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2008), Chicago, IL, USA, D. Fox and C.P. Gomes, eds, AAAI Press, 2008, pp. 351-356.
[41]
V.M. Manquinho and J. Marques-Silva, On using cutting planes in pseudo-Boolean optimization, Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(2006), 209-219.
[42]
V.M. Manquinho and O. Roussel, The first evaluation of pseudo-Boolean solvers (PB'05), Journal on Satisfiability, Boolean Modeling and Computation 2(2006), 103-143.
[43]
V.M. Manquinho, J.M. Silva and J. Planes, Algorithms for weighted Boolean optimization, in: Proc. of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2009), Swansea, UK, O. Kullmann, ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5584, Springer, 2009, pp. 495-508.
[44]
J. Marques-Silva and V.M. Manquinho, Towards more effective unsatisfiability-based maximum satisfiability algorithms, in: Proc. of 11th International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT 2008), Guangzhou, China, H.K. Büning and X. Zhao, eds, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4996, Springer, 2008, pp. 225-230.
[45]
J. Marques-Silva and J. Planes, Algorithms for maximum satisfiability using unsatisfiable cores, in: Proc. of Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE 2008), Munich, Germany, IEEE, 2008, pp. 408-413.
[46]
D.V. McDermott, The 1998 AI planning systems competition, AI Magazine 21(2) (2000), 35-55.
[47]
D.G. Mitchell, A SAT solver primer, Bulletin of the European Association for Theoretical Computer Science 85(2005), 112-132.
[48]
D.A. Plaisted and S. Greenbaum, A structure-preserving clause form translation, Journal of Symbolic Computation 2(1986), 293-304.
[49]
M. Ramirez and H. Geffner, Structural relaxations by variable renaming and their compilation for solving mincostsat, in: Proc. of the 13th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, Providence, RI, USA, C. Bessiere, ed., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4741, Springer, 2007, pp. 605-619.
[50]
J. Rintanen, K. Heljanko and I. Niemelä, Planning as satisfiability: Parallel plans and algorithms for plan search, Artificial Intelligence 170(12,13) (2006), 1031-1080.
[51]
N. Robinson, C. Gretton, D.N. Pham and A. Sattar, SAT-based parallel planning using a split representation of actions, in: Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2009), Thessaloniki, Greece, A. Gerevini, A.E. Howe, A. Cesta and I. Refanidis, eds, AAAI Press, 2009.
[52]
H.M. Sheini and K.A. Sakallah, Pueblo: A modern pseudo-Boolean sat solver, in: Proc. of Design, Automation and Test in Europe Conference and Exposition (DATE 2005), Munich, Germany, IEEE Computer Society, 2005, pp. 684-685.
[53]
G. Tseitin, On the complexity of proofs in propositional logics, Seminars in Mathematics 8(1970), 115-125.
[54]
M. van den Briel and S. Kambhampati, Optiplan: Unifying IP-based and graph-based planning, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24(2005), 919-931.
[55]
M. van den Briel, S. Kambhampati and T. Vossen, Planning with preferences and trajectory constraints through integer programming, in: Proc. of the ICAPS Workshop on Planning with Preferences and Soft Constraints, Cumbria, UK, 2006, pp. 19-22.
[56]
M. van der Briel, S. Kambhampati and T. Vessen, IPPLAN: Planning as integer programming, in: 5th International Planning Competition Booklet, 2006, pp. 26-28, available at: http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/booklet/i06-ipc-allpapers.pdf.
[57]
M. van den Briel, T. Vossen and S. Kambhampati, Loosely coupled formulations for automated planning: An integer programming perspective, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 31(2008), 217-257.
[58]
J.P. Warners, A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into CNF, Information Processing Letters 68(2) (1998), 63-69.
[59]
Z. Xing, Y. Chen and W. Zhang, Optimal STRIPS planning by maximum satisfiability and accumulative learning, in: Proc. of the 16th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2006), Cumbria, UK, D. Long, S.F. Smith, D. Borrajo and L. McCluskey, eds, AAAI Press, 2006, pp. 442-446.
[60]
Z. Xing, Y. Chen and W. Zhang, MaxPlan: Optimal planning by decomposed satisfiability and backward reduction, in: 5th International Planning Competition Booklet, 2006, pp. 53-55, available at: http://zeus.ing.unibs.it/ipc-5/booklet/i06-ipc-allpapers.pdf.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image AI Communications
AI Communications  Volume 25, Issue 4
October 2012
116 pages

Publisher

IOS Press

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2012

Author Tags

  1. Planning
  2. Satisfiability

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 0
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 26 Sep 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media