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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Neumann, B. (ed.) Proc. of ECAI 1992, pp. 359–363 (1992)
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)
Hoffmann, J., Edelkamp, S.: The deterministic part of IPC-4: An overview. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24, 519–579 (2005)
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)
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)
Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: Planning as satisfiability with preferences. In: Proc. of AAAI 2007, pp. 987–992. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)
Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: SAT-based planning with minimal-#actions plans and ”soft” goals. In: Proc. of AI*IA 2007, pp. 422–433 (2007)
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)
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)
Gavanelli, M.: An algorithm for multi-criteria optimization in CSPs. In: Proc. of ECAI 2002, pp. 136–140. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)
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)
Tseitin, G.: On the complexity of proofs in propositional logics. Seminars in Mathematics 8 (1970)
Warners, J.P.: A linear-time transformation of linear inequalities into CNF. Information Processing Letters 68(2), 63–69 (1998)
Brafman, R.I., Chernyavsky, Y.: Planning with goal preferences and constraints. In: Proc. of ICAPS 2005, pp. 182–191. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)
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)
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)
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)
Keyder, E., Geffner, H.: Heuristics for planning with action costs revisited. In: Proc. of ECAI 2008, pp. 588–592. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2008)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)