Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reformulation in Planning

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation (SARA 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2371))

Abstract

Reformulation of a problem is intended to make the problem more amenable to efficient solution. This is equally true in the special case of reformulating a planning problem. This paper considers various ways in which reformulation has been exploited in planning. In particular, it considers reformulation of planning problems to exploit structure within them by allowing deployment of specialised sub-solvers, capable of tackling sub-problems with greater efficiency than generic planning technologies. The relationship between this reformulation of planning problems and the reformulation of problems in general is briefly considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. C. Alexander, S. Ishikawa, M. Silverstein, M. Jacobson, I. Fiksdahl-King, and S. Angel. A Pattern Language. Oxford University Press, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C.R. Anderson, D.E. Smith, and D.S. Weld. Conditional effects in Graphplan. In Proc. of 4th International Conference on AI Planning Systems, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. F. Bacchus and F. Kabanza. Using temporal logic to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence, 116(1–2):123–191, 2000.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. A. Blum and M. Furst. Fast Planning throughPlan-graphAnalysis. InProc. of 14th Internation Joint Conference on AI, pages 1636–1642. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. B. Bonet and H. Geffner. Planning as heuristic search: new results. In Proc. of 4th European Conference on Planning (ECP). Springer-Verlag, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A. Cimatti, M. Roveri, and P. Trverso. Strong planning in non-deterministic domains via model-checking. In Proc. of 4th International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (AIPS’00), 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. Clark. Construction domains: a generic type solved. In Proceedings of 20th Workshop of UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  8. S. Cress well, M. Fox, and D. Long. Extending TIM domain analysis to handle ADL constructs. In L. McCluskey, editor, Knowledge Engineering Tools and Techniques for AI Planning: AIPS’02 Workshop, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M.B. Do and S. Kambhampati. Sapa: a domain-independent heuristic metric temporal planner. In Proc. ECP-01, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Minh Binh Do and S. Kambhampati. Solving planning graph by compiling it into a CSP. In Proc. of 5th Conference on AI Planning Systems, pages 82–91. AAAI Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  11. B. Drabble and A. Tate. The use of optimistic and pessimistic resource profiles to inform search in an activity based planner. In Proc. of 2nd Conference on AI Planning Systems (AIPS). AAAI Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  12. S. Edelkamp. Mixed propositional and numeric planning in the model checking integrated planning system. In M. Fox and A. Coddington, editors, Planning for Temporal Domains: AIPS’02 Workshop, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. Fox and D. Long. The automatic inference of state invariants in tim. Journal of AI Research, 9:367–421, 1998.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. M. Fox and D. Long. The detection and exploitation of symmetry in planning problems. In Proc. of 16th Internation Joint Conference on AI, pages 956–961. Morgan Kaufmann, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Fox and D. Long. Hybrid STAN: Identifying and Managing Combinatorial Sub-problems in Planning. In Proc. of 17th International Joint Conference on AI, pages 445–452. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Fox and D. Long. Extending the exploitation of symmetries in planning. In Proc. of 6th International Conference on AI Planning Systems (AIPS’ 02). AAAI Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Fox and D. Long. Fast temporal planning in a Graphplan framework. In M. Fox and A. Coddington, editors, Planning for Temporal Domains: AIPS’02 Workshop, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Fox, D. Long, S. Bradley, and J. McKinna. Using model checking for pre-planning analysis. In AAAI Spring Symposium Series: Model-based Validation of Intelligence. AAAI Press, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Fox, D. Long, and M. Hamdi. Handling multiple sub-problems within a planning domain. In Proc. of 20th Workshop of UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  20. E. Gamma, R. Helm, R. Johnson, and J. Vlissides. Design Patterns: Elements of reusable software. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. B.C. Gazen and C. Knoblock. Combining the expressiveness of UCPOP with the efficiency of Graphplan. In Proc. of 4th European Conference on Planning (ECP’97), 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Gerevini and L. Schubert. Accelerating Partial Order Planners: Some Techniques for Effective Search Control and Pruning. Journal of AI Research, 5:95–137, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  23. A. Gerevini and I. Serina. LPG: A planner based on local search for planning graphs. In Proc. of 6th International Conference on AI Planning Systems (AIPS’02). AAAI Press, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. Hoffmann and B. Nebel. The FF planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search. Journal of AI Research, 14:253–302, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  25. H. Kautz and B. Selman. Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In Proc. of 14th Internation Joint Conference on AI, pages 318–325. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Koehler, B. Nebel, J. Hoffmann, and Y. Dimopoulos. Extending planning graphs to an ADL subset. In Proc. of 4th European Conference on Planning, Toulouse, pages 273–285, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. J. Kvarnstrom and P. Doherty. TALplanner: A temporal logic based forward chaining planner. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 30(1–4):119–169, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. P. Laborie and M. Ghallab. Planning with sharable resource constraints. In Proc. of 14th International Joint Conference on AI. Morgan Kaufmann, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  29. D. Long and M. Fox. Automatic synthesis and use of generic types in planning. In Proc. of 5th Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS), pages 196–205. AAAI Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. D. Long and M. Fox. Multi-processor scheduling problems in planning. In Proc. of ICAI’01, Las Vegas, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  31. D. Long, M. Fox, L. Sebastia, and A. Coddington. An examination of resources in planning. In Proc. of 19th UK Planning and Scheduling Workshop, Milton Keynes, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  32. D. Long and M. Fox. Planning with generic types. Technical report, Invited talk at IJCAI’01 (forthcoming Morgan-Kaufmann publication), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. Murray. Reuse of control knowledge in planning domains. In L. McCluskey, editor, Knowledge Engineering Tools and Techniques for AI Planning: AIPS’02 Workshop, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  34. D. Nau, Y. Cao, A. Lotem, and H. Munoz-Avila. SHOP: Simple hierarchical orederd planner. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  35. B. Nebel. On the compilability and expressive power of propositional planning formalisms. Journal of AI Research, 12:271–315, 2000.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. E. Pednault. ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In Proc. of 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 324–332. San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  37. R. Simpson, L. McCluskey, D. Long, and M. Fox. Generic types as design patterns for planning domain specification. In L. McCluskey, editor, Knowledge Engineering Tools and Techniques for AI Planning: AIPS’02 Workshop, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  38. B. Srivastava. RealPlan: Decoupling causal and resource reasoning in planning. In Proc. of 17th National Conference on AI, pages 812–818. AAAI/MIT Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  39. P. van Beek and X. Chen. CPlan: A constraint programming approach to planning. In Proc. of 16th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 585–590. AAAI/MIT Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Durham, UK

    Derek Long, Maria Fox & Muna Hamdi

Authors
  1. Derek Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Muna Hamdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, 801 Atlantic Dr NW, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0280, USA

    Sven Koenig

  2. Department of Computing Science, Universtity of Alberta, 2-21 Athabasca Hall, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E8, Canada

    Robert C. Holte

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Long, D., Fox, M., Hamdi, M. (2002). Reformulation in Planning. In: Koenig, S., Holte, R.C. (eds) Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation. SARA 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2371. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45622-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45622-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43941-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45622-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation