Advertisement

KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 173–183 | Cite as

Towards Configuration Planning with Partially Ordered Preferences: Representation and Results

  • Lia Susana d. C. Silva-Lopez
  • Mathias Broxvall
  • Amy Loutfi
  • Lars Karlsson
Technical Contribution

Abstract

Configuration planning for a distributed robotic system is the problem of how to configure the system over time in order to achieve some causal and/or information goals. A configuration plan specifies what components (sensor, actuator and computational devices), should be active at different times and how they should exchange information. However, not all plans that solve a given problem need to be equally good, and for that purpose it may be important to take preferences into account. In this paper we present an algorithm for configuration planning that incorporates general partially ordered preferences. The planner supports multiple preference categories, and hence it solves a multiple-objective optimization problem: for a given problem, it finds all possible valid, non-dominated configuration plans. The planner has been able to successfully cope with partial ordering relations between quantitative preferences in practically acceptable times, as shown in the empirical results. Preferences here are represented as c-semirings, and are used for establishing dominance of a solution over another in order to obtain a set of configuration plans that will constitute the solution of a configuration planning problem with partially ordered preferences. The dominance operators tested in this paper are Pareto and Lorenz dominance. Our solver considers one guiding heuristic for obtaining the first solution, and then switches to a dominance based monotonically decreasing heuristic used for pruning dominated partial configuration plans. In our empirical results, we perform a statistical study in the space of problem instances and establish families of problems for which our approach is computationally feasible.

Keywords

Preference Function Configuration Plan Search Array Lorenz Dominance Preference Category 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the GiraffPlus EU Project, funded by the European Community’s Framework Programme Seven (FP7) under contract #288173.

References

  1. 1.
    Allen JF, Koomen JAGM (1983) Planning using a temporal world model. IJCAI 8:711–714Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baier J, Bacchus F, McIlraith SA (2009) A heuristic search approach to planning with temporally extended preferences. Artif Intell 173(5–6):593–618CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baier JA, McIlraith SA (2008) Planning with preferences. AI Mag 4(29):25–36Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bienvenu M, Fritz C, McIlraith SA (2006) Planning with qualitative temporal preferences. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning (KR-06). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 134–144Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bienvenu M, Fritz C, McIlraith SA (2011) Specifying and computing preferred plans. Artif Intell 175(7–8):1308–1345CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bistarelli S, Montanari U, Rossi F, Schiex T, Verfaillie G, Fargier H (1999) Semiring-based csps and valued csps: frameworks, properties, and comparison. Constraints 4(3):199–240CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boutilier C, Brafman RI, Domshlak C, Hoos HH, Poole D (2004) Cp-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 21:135–191zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brafman R, Chernyavsky Y (2005) Planning with goal preferences and constraints. In: Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, pp 182–191Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brafman RI, Chernyavsky Y (2005) Planning with goal preferences and constraints. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS-2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brafman RI, Domshlak C, Shimony SE (2006) On graphical modeling of preference and importance. J Artif Intell Res 25:389–424zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dechter R, Meiri I, Pearl J (1991) Temporal constraint networks. Artif Intell 49(1):61–95CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coradeschi S et al (2013) Giraffplus: combining social interaction and long term monitoring for promoting independent living. In: The 6th international conference on human system interaction (HSI). IEEE, Sopot, Poland, pp 578–585Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ (1972) Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerevini A, Long D (2006) Preferences and soft constraints in PDDL 3.0. In: Proceedings of the ICAPS-2006 workshop on preferences and soft constraints in planning. Lake District of the UK, pp 46–53Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghallab M, Nau DS, Traverso P (2004) Automated planning–theory and practice. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonzales C, Perny P, Dubus JPh (2011) Decision making with multiple objectives using gai networks. Artif Intell 175(7):1153–1179CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korsah AG, Stentz A, Dias MB (2013) A comprehensive taxonomy for multi-robot task allocation. Int J Robotics Res 32(12):1495–1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lundh R (2009) Robots that help each other: self-configuration of distributed robot systems. PhD thesis, Örebro University, School of Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nagy R, Suciu M, Dumitrescu D (2012) Exploring lorenz dominance. In: Symbolic and numeric algorithms for scientific computing (SYNASC), 2012 14th international symposium on. IEEE, pp 254–259Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parker LE, Tang F (2006) Building multirobot coalitions through automated task solution synthesis. Proc IEEE 94(7):1289–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Penberthy JS, Weld DS (1992) Ucpop: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on knowledge representation and reasoning. Citeseer, pp 103–114Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pnueli A (1977) The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, pp 46–57Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Puterman ML (1994) Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming, 1st edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silva-Lopez LSdC, Broxvall M (2013) Empirical methods for evaluating properties of configuration planning algorithms. In: O’Grady et al (eds) Evolving ambient intelligence. Communications in computer and information science, vol 413. Springer International Publishing, pp 114–119Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Son TC, Pontelli E (2006) Planning with preferences using logic programming. Theory Pract Log Program 6(5):559–607CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vilain M, Kautz H (1986) Constraint propagation algorithms for temporal reasoning. In: Proceedings of the fifth national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 377–382Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Younes HLS, Simmons RG (2003) Vhpop: versatile heuristic partial order planner. J Artif Intell Res (JAIR) 20:405–430zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lia Susana d. C. Silva-Lopez
    • 1
  • Mathias Broxvall
    • 1
  • Amy Loutfi
    • 1
  • Lars Karlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Applied Autonomous Sensor SystemsÖrebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations