Abstract
In the field of automated planning, an action is called reversible when other actions can be applied in order to revert the effects of this action and return to the original state. In recent years, there has been renewed interest in this topic, which led to novel results in the widely known STRIPS formalism and the PDDL planning language.
In this paper, we aim to solve the computational problem of deciding action reversibility in a practical setting, applying recent advances in the field of logic programming. In particular, a quantified extension of Answer Set Programming (ASP) named ASP with Quantifiers (ASP(Q)) has been proposed by Amendola, Ricca, and Truszczynski, which allows for stacking logic programs by quantifying over answer sets of the previous layer. This language is well-suited to express encodings for the action reversibility problem, since this problem naturally contains a quantifier alternation. In addition, a prototype solver for ASP(Q) is currently developed. We make use of the ASP(Q) language to offer an encoding for action reversibility, and then report on preliminary benchmark results on how well this encoding performs compared to classical ASP.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amendola, G., Ricca, F., Truszczynski, M.: Beyond NP: quantifying over answer sets. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 19(5–6), 705–721 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068419000140
Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Commun. ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/2043174.2043195
Bylander, T.: The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artif. Intell. 69(1–2), 165–204 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(94)90081-7
Calimeri, F., et al.: Asp-core-2 input language format. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 20(2), 294–309 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068419000450
Camacho, A., Muise, C.J., McIlraith, S.A.: From FOND to robust probabilistic planning: computing compact policies that bypass avoidable deadends. In: Proceedings ICAPS, pp. 65–69 (2016). http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS16/paper/view/13188
Chrpa, L., Faber, W., Morak, M.: Universal and uniform action reversibility. In: Proceedings KR (2021)
Chrpa, L., Lipovetzky, N., Sardiña, S.: Handling non-local dead-ends in agent planning programs. In: Proceedings IJCAI, pp. 971–978 (2017). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/135
Chrpa, L., McCluskey, T.L., Osborne, H.: Optimizing plans through analysis of action dependencies and independencies. In: Proceedings ICAPS (2012). http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS12/paper/view/4712
Cserna, B., Doyle, W.J., Ramsdell, J.S., Ruml, W.: Avoiding dead ends in real-time heuristic search. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), pp. 1306–1313 (2018)
Daum, J., Torralba, Á., Hoffmann, J., Haslum, P., Weber, I.: Practical undoability checking via contingent planning. In: Proceedings ICAPS, pp. 106–114 (2016). http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS16/paper/view/13091
De Giacomo, G., Gerevini, A.E., Patrizi, F., Saetti, A., Sardiña, S.: Agent planning programs. Artif. Intell. 231, 64–106 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2015.10.001
Dimopoulos, Y., Gebser, M., Lühne, P., Romero, J., Schaub, T.: plasp 3: towards effective ASP planning. Theory Pract. Logic Program. 19(3), 477–504 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068418000583
Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Faber, W.: Undoing the effects of action sequences. J. Appl. Logic 6(3), 380–415 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2007.05.002
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: propositional case. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 15(3–4), 289–323 (1995)
Faber, W., Morak, M., Chrpa, L.: Determining action reversibility in strips using answer set and epistemic logic programming. Theory Pract. Log. Program. 21(5), 646–662 (2021)
Fikes, R., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif. Intell. 2(3/4), 189–208 (1971)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer set solving in practice. Synth. Lect. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. 6(3), 1–238 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2200/S00457ED1V01Y201211AIM019
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener. Comput. 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03037169
Ghallab, M., Nau, D.S., Traverso, P.: Automated planning - theory and practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)
Ghallab, M., Nau, D.S., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning and Acting. Cambridge University Press (2016). http://www.cambridge.org/de/academic/subjects/computer-science/artificial-intelligence-and-natural-language-processing/automated-planning-and-acting?format=HB
Hecking-Harbusch, J., Tentrup, L.: Solving QBF by abstraction. In: Orlandini, A., Zimmermann, M. (eds.) Proceedings Ninth International Symposium on Games, Automata, Logics, and Formal Verification, GandALF 2018, Saarbrücken, Germany, 26–28th September 2018, EPTCS, vol. 277, pp. 88–102 (2018). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.277.7
Lifschitz, V.: Answer Set Programming. Springer, Heidelberg (2019)
Lipovetzky, N., Muise, C.J., Geffner, H.: Traps, invariants, and dead-ends. In: Proceedings ICAPS, pp. 211–215 (2016). http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS16/paper/view/13190
Morak, M., Chrpa, L., Faber, W., Fišer, D.: On the reversibility of actions in planning. In: Proceedings KR, pp. 652–661 (2020). https://doi.org/10.24963/kr.2020/65
Acknowledgments
Supported by the S&T Cooperation CZ 05/2019 “Identifying Undoable Actions and Events in Automated Planning by Means of Answer Set Programming”, by the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under the Czech-Austrian Mobility program (project no. 8J19AT025) and by the OP VVV funded project “Research Center for Informatics”, number CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000765.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Faber, W., Morak, M., Chrpa, L. (2022). Determining Action Reversibility in STRIPS Using Answer Set Programming with Quantifiers. In: Cheney, J., Perri, S. (eds) Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. PADL 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13165. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94479-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94479-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94478-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94479-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)