Analysing AI Planning Problems in Linear Logic – A Partial Deduction Approach

Author(s):  
Peep Küngas
2001 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
MAX KANOVICH ◽  
JACQUELINE VAUZEILLES

We introduce Horn linear logic as a comprehensive logical system capable of handling the typical AI problem of making a plan of the actions to be performed by a robot so that he could get into a set of final situations, if he started with a certain initial situation. Contrary to undecidability of propositional Horn linear logic, the planning problem is proved to be decidable for a reasonably wide class of natural robot systems.The planning problem is proved to be EXPTIME-complete for the robot systems that allow actions with non-deterministic effects. Fixing a finite signature, that is a finite set of predicates and their finite domains, we get a polynomial time procedure of making plans for the robot system over this signature.The planning complexity is reduced to PSPACE for the robot systems with only pure deterministic actions.As honest numerical parameters in our algorithms we invoke the length of description of a planning task ‘from W to Z˜’ and the Kolmogorov descriptive complexity of AxT, a set of possible actions.


Author(s):  
Dieqiao Feng ◽  
Carla Gomes ◽  
Bart Selman

Despite significant progress in general AI planning, certain domains remain out of reach of current AI planning systems. Sokoban is a PSPACE-complete planning task and represents one of the hardest domains for current AI planners. Even domain-specific specialized search methods fail quickly due to the exponential search complexity on hard instances. Our approach based on deep reinforcement learning augmented with a curriculum-driven method is the first one to solve hard instances within one day of training while other modern solvers cannot solve these instances within any reasonable time limit. In contrast to prior efforts, which use carefully handcrafted pruning techniques, our approach automatically uncovers domain structure. Our results reveal that deep RL provides a promising framework for solving previously unsolved AI planning problems, provided a proper training curriculum can be devised.


2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 332-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
MAX KANOVICH ◽  
TAJANA BAN KIRIGIN ◽  
VIVEK NIGAM ◽  
ANDRE SCEDROV ◽  
CAROLYN TALCOTT ◽  
...  

Activities such as clinical investigations (CIs) or financial processes are subject to regulations to ensure quality of results and avoid negative consequences. Regulations may be imposed by multiple governmental agencies as well as by institutional policies and protocols. Due to the complexity of both regulations and activities, there is great potential for violation due to human error, misunderstanding, or even intent. Executable formal models of regulations, protocols and activities can form the foundation for automated assistants to aid planning, monitoring and compliance checking. We propose a model based on multiset rewriting where time is discrete and is specified by timestamps attached to facts. Actions, as well as initial, goal and critical states may be constrained by means of relative time constraints. Moreover, actions may have non-deterministic effects, i.e. they may have different outcomes whenever applied. We present a formal semantics of our model based on focused proofs of linear logic with definitions. We also determine the computational complexity of various planning problems. Plan compliance problem, for example, is the problem of finding a plan that leads from an initial state to a desired goal state without reaching any undesired critical state. We consider all actions to be balanced, i.e. their pre- and post-conditions have the same number of facts. Under this assumption on actions, we show that the plan compliance problem is PSPACE-complete when all actions have only deterministic effects and is EXPTIME-complete when actions may have non-deterministic effects. Finally, we show that the restrictions on the form of actions and time constraints taken in the specification of our model are necessary for decidability of the planning problems.


2021 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 533-612
Author(s):  
Benjamin Krarup ◽  
Senka Krivic ◽  
Daniele Magazzeni ◽  
Derek Long ◽  
Michael Cashmore ◽  
...  

In automated planning, the need for explanations arises when there is a mismatch between a proposed plan and the user’s expectation. We frame Explainable AI Planning as an iterative plan exploration process, in which the user asks a succession of contrastive questions that lead to the generation and solution of hypothetical planning problems that are restrictions of the original problem. The object of the exploration is for the user to understand the constraints that govern the original plan and, ultimately, to arrive at a satisfactory plan. We present the results of a user study that demonstrates that when users ask questions about plans, those questions are usually contrastive, i.e. “why A rather than B?”. We use the data from this study to construct a taxonomy of user questions that often arise during plan exploration. Our approach to iterative plan exploration is a process of successive model restriction. Each contrastive user question imposes a set of constraints on the planning problem, leading to the construction of a new hypothetical planning problem as a restriction of the original. Solving this restricted problem results in a plan that can be compared with the original plan, admitting a contrastive explanation. We formally define model-based compilations in PDDL2.1 for each type of constraint derived from a contrastive user question in the taxonomy, and empirically evaluate the compilations in terms of computational complexity. The compilations were implemented as part of an explanation framework supporting iterative model restriction. We demonstrate its benefits in a second user study.


2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS VOSSEN ◽  
MICHAEL BALL ◽  
AMNON LOTEM ◽  
DANA NAU

Despite the historical difference in focus between AI planning techniques and Integer Programming (IP) techniques, recent research has shown that IP techniques show significant promise in their ability to solve AI planning problems. This paper provides approaches to encode AI planning problems as IP problems, describes some of the more significant issues that arise in using IP for AI planning, and discusses promising directions for future research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document