Abstract
A key question in conditional planning is: how many, and which of the possible execution failures should be planned for? One cannot, in general, plan for all the failures that can be anticipated: there are simply too many. But neither can one ignore all the possible failures, or one will fail to produce sufficiently flexible plans. We describe a planning system that attempts to identify the contingencies that contribute the most to a plan's overall value. Plan generation proceeds by extending the plan to include actions that will be taken in case the identified contingencies fail, iterating until either a given expected value threshold is reached or the planning time is exhausted. We provide details of the algorithm, discuss its implementation in the Mahinur system, and give initial results of experiments comparing it with the C-Buridan approach to conditional planning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Jim Blythe and Manuela Veloso. Analogical replay for efficient conditional planning. In Proc. 14th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 668–773, 1997.
T. Dean, L. P. Kaelbling, J. Kirman, and A. Nicholson. Planning under time constraints in stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 76:35–74, 1995.
Denise Draper, Steve Hanks, and Daniel Weld. Probabilistic planning with information gathering and contingent execution. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on AI Planning Systems, pages 31–36, 1994.
Oren Etzioni, Steve Hanks, Daniel Weld, Denise Draper, Neal Lesh, and Mike Williamson. An approach to planning with incomplete information. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Repr. and Reasoning, pages 115–125, 1992.
Robert P. Goldman and Mark S. Boddy. Epsilon-safe planning. In Proc. 10th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 253–261, 1994.
Peter Haddawy and Steve Hanks. Utility models for goal-directed decision-theoretic planners. Technical Report 93-06-04, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, 1993.
Peter Haddawy and Meliani Suwandi. Decision-theoretic refinement planning using inheritance abstraction. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on AI Planning Systems, pages 266–271, 1994.
Nicholas Kushmerick, Steve Hanks, and Daniel S. Weld. An algorithm for probabilistic planning. Artificial Intelligence, 76:239–286, 1995.
Nilufer Onder and Martha E. Pollack. Contingency selection in plan generation. In AAAI Fall Symp. on Plan Execution: Problems and Issues, pages 102–108, 1996.
Mark A. Peot and David E. Smith. Conditional nonlinear planning. In Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on AI Planning Systems, pages 189–197, 1992.
Louise Pryor and Gregg Collins. Planning for contingencies: A decision based approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 4:287–339, 1996.
Stuart J. Russell and Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
Mike Williamson and Steve Hanks. Optimal planning with a goal-directed utility model. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on AI Planning Systems, pages 176–181, 1994.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Onder, N., Pollack, M.E. (1997). Contingency selection in plan generation. In: Steel, S., Alami, R. (eds) Recent Advances in AI Planning. ECP 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1348. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63912-8_99
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63912-8_99
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63912-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69665-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive