Timeline Planning in the J-TRE Environment

  • Riccardo De Benedictis
  • Amedeo Cesta
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 358)


Timeline-based representations constitute a quite natural way to reason on time and resource constraints while planning. Additionally timeline-based planners have been demonstrated as successful in modeling and solving problems in several real world domains. In spite of these successes, any aspect related to search control remains a “black art” for few experts of the particular approach mostly because these architectures are huge application developments environments. For example, the exploration of alternative search techniques is quite hard. This paper proposes a general architecture for timeline-based reasoning that brings together key aspects of such reasoning leaving freedom to specific implementations on both constraint reasoning engines and resolution heuristics. Within such architecture, called J-tre, three different planners are built and compared with respect to a quite challenging reference problem. The experiments shed some light on key differences and pave the way for future works.


Constraint Satisfaction Problem Temporal Network Consumable Resource Constraint Reasoner Reusable Resource 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jonsson, A., Morris, P., Muscettola, N., Rajan, K., Smith, B.: Planning in Interplanetary Space: Theory and Practice. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Int. Conf. on AI Planning and Scheduling, AIPS 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chien, S., Tran, D., Rabideau, G., Schaffer, S., Mandl, D., Frye, S.: Timeline-Based Space Operations Scheduling with External Constraints. In: Proc. of the 20th Int. Conf. on Automated Planning and Scheduling, ICAPS 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghallab, M., Laruelle, H.: Representation and Control in IxTeT, a Temporal Planner. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Int. Conf. on AI Planning and Scheduling, AIPS 1994, pp. 61–67 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fratini, S., Pecora, F., Cesta, A.: Unifying Planning and Scheduling as Timelines in a Component-Based Perspective. Archives of Control Sciences 18(2), 231–271 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cesta, A., Cortellessa, G., Fratini, S., Oddi, A.: Developing an End-to-End Planning Application from a Timeline Representation Framework. In: Proc. of the 21st Conf. on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frank, J., Jonsson, A.: Constraint-Based Attribute and Interval Planning. Constraints 8(4), 339–364 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61–124 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A.: Gaining Efficiency and Flexibility in the Simple Temporal Problem. In: TIME 1996: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laborie, P.: Algorithms for propagating resource constraints in ai planning and scheduling: existing approaches and new results. Artificial Intelligence 143, 151–188 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weld, D.S.: An Introduction to Least Commitment Planning. AI Magazine 15(4), 27–61 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blum, A., Furst, M.L.: Fast Planning Through Planning Graph Analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90, 281–300 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bonet, B., Geffner, H.: Planning as heuristic search. Artificial Intelligence 129, 5–33 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muscettola, N.: HSTS: Integrating Planning and Scheduling. In: Zweben, M., Fox, M.S. (eds.) Intelligent Scheduling. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allen, J.F.: Maintaining Knowledge about Temporal Intervals. Commun. ACM 26(11), 832–843 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bernardini, S., Smith, D.: Developing domain-independent search control for Europa2. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Heuristics for Domain-independent Planning at ICAPS 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Di Rosa, E., Giunchiglia, E., Maratea, M.: Solving Satisfiability Problems with Preferences. Constraints 15(4), 485–515 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sebastiani, R.: Lazy Satisability Modulo Theories. JSAT 3(3-4), 141–224 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ceballos, A., Bensalem, S., Cesta, A., de Silva, L., Fratini, S., Ingrand, F., Ocon, J., Orlandini, A., Py, F., Rajan, K., Rasconi, R., van Winnendael, M.: A Goal-oriented Autonomous Controller for Space Exploration. In: Proc. 11th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, ASTRA 2011 (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo De Benedictis
    • 1
  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  1. 1.CNR, Italian National Research Council, ISTCRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations