Skip to main content

Improving Plan Quality in SAT-Based Planning

  • Conference paper
Book cover AI*IA 2009: Emergent Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5883))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Planning as Satisfiability (SAT) is the best approach for optimally (wrt makespan) solving classical planning problems. SAT-based planners, like satplan, can thus return plans having minimal makespan guaranteed. However, the returned plan does not take into account plan quality issues introduced in the last two International Planning Competitions (IPCs): such issues include minimal-actions plans and plans with “soft” goals, where a metric has to be optimized over actions/goals. Recently, an approach to address such issues has been presented, in the framework of planning as satisfiability with preferences: by modifying the heuristic of the underlying SAT solver, the related system (called satplan(P)) is guaranteed to return plans with minimal number of actions, or with maximal number of soft goals satisfied. But, besides such feature, it is well-known that introducing ordering in SAT heuristics can lead to significant degradation in performances. In this paper, we present a generate-and-test approach to tackle the problem of dealing with such optimization issues: without imposing any ordering, a (candidate optimal) plan is first generated, and then a constraint is added imposing that the new plan (if any) has to be “better” than the last computed, i.e., the plan quality is increased at each iteration. We implemented this idea in satplan, and compared the resulting systems wrt satplan(P) and SGPlan on planning problems coming from IPCs. The analysis shows performance benefits for the new approach, in particular on planning problems with many preferences.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
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. Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) Proc. of ECAI 1992, pp. 359–363 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In: Dean, T. (ed.) Proc. of IJCAI 1999, pp. 318–325. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffmann, J., Edelkamp, S.: The deterministic part of IPC-4: An overview. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24, 519–579 (2005)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Gerevini, A., Haslum, P., Long, D., Saetti, A., Dimopoulos, Y.: Deterministic planning in the 5th IPC: PDDL3 and experimental evaluation of the planners. Artificial Intelligence 173(5-6), 619–668 (2009)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Xing, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, W.: Maxplan: Optimal planning by decomposed satisfiability and backward reduction. In: Proc. of 5th IPC, ICAPS 2006, pp. 53–55 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: Planning as satisfiability with preferences. In: Proc. of AAAI 2007, pp. 987–992. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: SAT-based planning with minimal-#actions plans and ”soft” goals. In: Proc. of AI*IA 2007, pp. 422–433 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Järvisalo, M., Junttila, T.A., Niemelä, I.: Unrestricted vs restricted cut in a tableau method for boolean circuits. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44(4), 373–399 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Castell, T., Cayrol, C., Cayrol, M., Berre, D.L.: Using the Davis and Putnam procedure for an efficient computation of preferred models. In: Proc. of ECAI 1996, pp. 350–354 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gavanelli, M.: An algorithm for multi-criteria optimization in CSPs. In: Proc. of ECAI 2002, pp. 136–140. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. DiRosa, E., Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: A new approach for solving satisfiability problems with qualitative preferences. In: Proc. of ECAI 2008, pp. 510–514. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tseitin, G.: On the complexity of proofs in propositional logics. Seminars in Mathematics 8 (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Warners, J.P.: A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into CNF. Information Processing Letters 68(2), 63–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Brafman, R.I., Chernyavsky, Y.: Planning with goal preferences and constraints. In: Proc. of ICAPS 2005, pp. 182–191. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 135–191 (2004)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Büttner, M., Rintanen, J.: Satisfiability planning with constraints on the number of actions. In: Proc. of ICAPS 2005, pp. 292–299. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, Y., Lv, Q., Huang, R.: Plan-A: A cost-optimal planner based on SAT-constrained optimization. In: Proc. of 6th IPC, ICAPS 2008 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Keyder, E., Geffner, H.: Heuristics for planning with action costs revisited. In: Proc. of ECAI 2008, pp. 588–592. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M. (2009). Improving Plan Quality in SAT-Based Planning. In: Serra, R., Cucchiara, R. (eds) AI*IA 2009: Emergent Perspectives in Artificial Intelligence. AI*IA 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5883. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10291-2_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10291-2_26

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-10290-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-10291-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics