Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Analysis
Related Work
Related Formalisms
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Psychology
Cognitive Science

Modelling Mixed Discrete-Continuous Domains for Planning

Profile image of Maria FoxMaria Fox

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

https://doi.org/10.1613/JAIR.2044
visibility

…

description

63 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

In this paper we present pddl+, a planning domain description language for modelling mixed discrete-continuous planning domains. We describe the syntax and modelling style of pddl+, showing that the language makes convenient the modelling of complex time-dependent effects. We provide a formal semantics for pddl+ by mapping planning instances into constructs of hybrid automata. Using the syntax of HAs as our semantic model we construct a semantic mapping to labelled transition systems to complete the formal interpretation of pddl+ planning instances. An advantage of building a mapping from pddl+ to HA theory is that it forms a bridge between the Planning and Real Time Systems research communities. One consequence is that we can expect to make use of some of the theoretical properties of HAs. For example, for a restricted class of HAs the Reachability problem (which is equivalent to Plan Existence) is decidable. pddl+ provides an alternative to the continuous durative action model of ...

Related papers

Planning as model checking in hybrid domains
Sergiy Bogomolov

Planning in hybrid domains is an important and challenging task, and various planning algorithms have been proposed in the last years. From an abstract point of view, hybrid planning domains are based on hybrid automata, which have been studied intensively in the model checking community. In particular, powerful model checking algorithms and tools have emerged for this formalism. However, despite the quest for more scalable planning approaches, model checking algorithms have not been applied to planning in hybrid domains so far. In this paper, we make a first step in bridging the gap between these two worlds. We provide a formal translation scheme from PDDL+ to the standard formalism of hybrid automata, as a solid basis for using hybrid system modelchecking tools for dealing with hybrid planning domains. As a case study, we use the SpaceEx model checker, showing how we can address PDDL+ domains that are out of the scope of state-of-the-art planners.

View PDFchevron_right
Bridging the Modelling Gap: Examining the Expressiveness of Planning Domain
Derek Long

2003

Research in planning has advanced rapidly over recent years, spurred partly by a series of international planning competitions and the convergence on empirical evaluation that this has encouraged. One of the most important contributions made by the competition sequence is the development of a community standard modelling language, PDDL. This language has been extended from a relatively simple action description language to include constructs to express the use of resources and other metrically measured quantities and time. The traditional boundaries between planning and scheduling have become increasingly blurred, so that planning research is now regularly considered in application to problems that include management of resources, time, and the combined planning and scheduling of complex concurrent activities. In this paper we examine the extent to which PDDL2.1, the most recent development of the community standard modelling language, supports expression of realistic features of complex application domains. This examination is carried out with particular reference to two domains inspired by space applications: satellite observation planning and planetary rover exploration planning. Versions of these domains were used in the 3rd International Planning Competition (2002). The limitations of these versions with respect to the application problems and the gap between the modelling language and the demands of these applications is explored.

View PDFchevron_right
Linear temporal logic as an executable semantics for planning languages
AndreA Orlandini

Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2006

This paper presents an approach to artificial intelligence planning based on linear temporal logic (LTL). A simple and easy-to-use planning language is described, PDDL-K (Planning Domain Description Language with control Knowledge), which allows one to specify a planning problem together with heuristic information that can be of help for both pruning the search space and finding better quality plans. The semantics of the language is given in terms of a translation into a set of LTL formulae. Planning is then reduced to "executing" the LTL encoding, i.e. to model search in LTL. The feasibility of the approach has been successfully tested by means of the system Pdk, an implementation of the proposed method.

View PDFchevron_right
A Framework for Hybrid Planning
Max Garagnani

Technical Report No: 2004/04, 2004

Hybrid models are characterised by the integration of two (or more) different paradigms of representation within the same sys- tem. Most current planning problem description languages are purely sentential, i.e., based on predicate logic formalisms [3, 14]. The ram- ification of the effects of action [16] makes the sentential description of planning problems that involve the spatial movement of physi- cal entities over-complex and inefficient. Evidence from research in knowledge representation and planning [6, 9, 8] indicates that these problems are more effectively modelled using homomorphic [1] (or analogical) representations. As for sentential descriptions, however, the complexity of the real world prevents purely homomorphic for- malisms from being always the most effective choice. This paper pro- poses a model-based theoretical framework for planning with hybrid representations, in which equivalent sentential and analogical mod- els can be simultaneously and interchangeably used. The analogical model which is developed extends a recently proposed representation for purely homomorphic planning [5]. The sentential model of action adopted is based on the current standard planning domain descrip- tion language PDDL2.1 [3]. The result is a powerful, heterogeneous planning representation that overcomes the limitations and offers the complementary strenghts of the two formalisms on which it relies.

View PDFchevron_right
PDDL—The Planning Domain Definition Language Version 1.2
Craig Knoblock

1998

Abstract This manual describes the syntax of PDDL, the Planning Domain Definition Language, the problem-specification language for the AIPS-98 planning competition. The language has roughly the the expressiveness of Pednault's ADL [10] for propositions, and roughly the expressiveness of UMCP [6] for actions. Our hope is to encourage empirical evaluation of planner performance, and development of standard sets of problems all in comparable notations.

View PDFchevron_right
Automated Planning with Hybrid Domain Models: A Method to Improve Continuous Process Descriptions
Rubiya Reba

Recent advances in Automated Planning not only involve the improvements in planning efficiency but also the enhancement in granularity in which planning domains are modelled. A significant progression is in the move from discrete domain models to mixed discrete-continuous models i.e. hybrid domain models. While planning with hybrid domains has been studied for decades, the knowledge engineering of those domain models is still a challenge, particularly for real-time complex domains. It is imperative to understand how to effectively and efficiently formulate the planning models to achieve maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or cost. One of the main engineering challenges of hybrid domain models involves encoding the frequent fluctuation of underlying processes with continuous updates in the world state. The occurring numerical changes with the variation of parameters can be too complex to be formulated accurately by human manual efforts. This thesis proposes a method utili...

View PDFchevron_right
Planning and the process specification language
Joseph Kopena

2005

Ontologies are becoming increasingly important in several AI fields (such as knowledge management and integration, cooperative problem solving, knowledge acquisition and knowledge-based systems, e-commerce and the Semantic Web) and, at present, there is also an increasing interest about their use in Planning and Scheduling (P&S) systems.

View PDFchevron_right
Validating Domains and Plans for Temporal Planning via Encoding into Infinite-State Linear Temporal Logic
Alessandro Cimatti

Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Temporal planning is an active research area of Artificial Intelligence because of its many applications ranging from roboticsto logistics and beyond. Traditionally, authors focused on theautomatic synthesis of plans given a formal representation of thedomain and of the problem. However, the effectiveness of suchtechniques is limited by the complexity of the modeling phase: it ishard to produce a correct model for the planning problem at hand. In this paper, we present a technique to simplify the creation ofcorrect models by leveraging formal-verification tools for automaticvalidation. We start by using the ANML language, a very expressivelanguage for temporal planning problems that has been recentlypresented. We chose ANML because of its usability andreadability. Then, we present a sound-and-complete, formal encodingof the language into Linear Temporal Logic over predicates withinfinite-state variables. Thanks to this reduction, we enable theformal verification of several relevant ...

View PDFchevron_right
LTL Plan Specification for Robotic Tasks Modelled as Finite State Automata
Bruno Lacerda

Proc. of Workshop ADAPT–Agent Design: Advancing from Practice to Theory, Workshop at AAMAS

We introduce a plan specification method for robotic tasks modelled by finite state automata. Each state of a system composed of (multiple) robot(s) situated in an environment is described by a set of propositional symbols. Events associated to transitions drive the state dynamics and represent actions issued by the robot controller or uncontrollable events (e.g., a failure or an action performed by another robot). The plan specifications are written in linear-time temporal logic, enabling a close-to-naturallanguage description of specifications while creating a sound method of enforcing them, by designing a supervisor, based on discrete event systems theory, that restricts the uncontrolled behaviour of the robot(s) to the subset of acceptable/desirable behaviours.

View PDFchevron_right
Guiding Planning Engines by Transition-Based Domain Control Knowledge
Roman Barták

2016

Domain-independent planning requires only to specify planning problems in a standard language (e.g. PDDL) in order to utilise planning in some application. Despite a huge advancement in domain-independent planning, some relatively-easy problems are still challenging for existing planning engines. Such an issue can be mitigated by specifying Domain Control Knowledge (DCK) that can provide better guidance for planning engines. In this paper, we introduce transition-based DCK, inspired by Finite State Automata, that is efficient as demonstrated empirically, planner-independent (can be encoded within planning problems) and easy to specify.

View PDFchevron_right

References (66)

  1. Allen, J., & Koomen, J. A. (1983). Planning in a Temporal World Model. In Proceedings of the Eigth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 741-747.
  2. Alur, R., & Dill, D. L. (1994). A Theory of Timed Automata. Theoretical Computer Science, 126, 183-235.
  3. Androulakis, I. P. (2001). MINLP: Branch and Bound Methods. In Floudas, C. A., & Pardalos, P. M. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of Optimisation, Vol. 3, pp. 325-331. Kluwer Academic.
  4. Aylett, R., Soutter, J., Petley, G., Chung, P., & Edwards, D. (2001). Planning plant operat- ing procedures for a chemical plant. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 14(3).
  5. Bacchus, F. (2003). The power of modeling-a response to PDDL2.1. Journal of AI Re- search, 20, 125-132.
  6. Fox & Long
  7. Beasley, J., Krishnamoorthy, M., Sharaiha, Y., & Abramson, D. (2000). Scheduling Aircraft Landings: The Static Case. Transportation Science, 34 (2), 180-197.
  8. Behrmann, G., Larsen, K., & Rasmussen, J. (2005). Optimal Scheduling Using Priced Timed Automata. SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev., 32 (4), 34-40.
  9. Benazera, E., Brafman, R., Meuleau, N., Mausam, & Hansen, E. A. (2005). An AO* Algorithm for Planning with Continuous Resources. In Workshop on Planning under Uncertainty for Autonomous Systems, associated with the International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS).
  10. Benders, J. F. (1962). Partitioning Procedures for Solving Mixed-Variables Programming Problems. Numerische Mathematik, 4, 238-252.
  11. Blake, O., Bridges, J., Chester, E., Clemmet, J., Hall, S., Hannington, M., Hurst, S., John- son, G., Lewis, S., Malin, M., Morison, I., Northey, D., Pullan, D., Rennie, G., Richter, L., Rothery, D., Shaughnessy, B., Sims, M., Smith, A., Townend, M., & Waugh, L. (2004). Beagle2 Mars: Mission Report. Lander Operations Control Centre, National Space Centre, University of Leicester.
  12. Boddy, M. (2003). Imperfect match: PDDL2. and real applications. Journal of AI Research, 20, 133-137.
  13. Boddy, M., & Johnson, D. (2002). A new method for the solution of large systems of contin- uous constraints. In Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Global Constrained Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction (COCOS-02).
  14. Boddy, M., & Johnson, D. (2004). Integrated planning and scheduling for petroleum re- finery operations. In Proceedings of ICAPS Workshop on Integrating Planning into Scheduling (WIPIS).
  15. de Kleer, J., & Brown, J. S. (1984). A Qualitative Physics based on Confluences. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 7-83.
  16. Dechter, R., Meiri, I., & Pearl, J. (1991). Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelli- gence, 49.
  17. Dierks, H. (2005). Finding Optimal Plans for Domains with Restricted Continuous Effects with UPPAAL-cora. In First Workshop on Validation and Verification for Planning, ICAPS-05.
  18. Edelkamp, S. (2003). Promela Planning. In Proceedings of 10th International SPIN Work- shop on Model Checking of Software, pp. 197-212.
  19. Forbus, K. (1984). Qualitative Process Theory. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 85-168.
  20. Fox, M., Howey, R., & Long, D. (2005). Exploration of the Robustness of Plans. In Workshop on Verification and Validation of Model-based Planning and Scheduling Systems, as- sociated with the International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)).
  21. Fox, M., Howey, R., & Long, D. (2006). Exploration of the Robustness of Plans. In Pro- ceedings of The 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-06).
  22. Fox, M., & Long, D. (2003). PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains. Journal of AI Research, 20, 61-124.
  23. Fox, M., & Long, D. (2004). An Investigation into the Expressive Power of PDDL2.1. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  24. Frank, J., & Jónsson, A. (2003). Constraint-based Attribute and Interval Planning. Journal of Constraints, 8 (Special Issue on Constraints and Planning)(4), 339-364.
  25. Frank, J., Jönsson, A., & Morris, P. (2000). On Reformulating Planning as Dynamic Con- straint Satisfaction (Extended Abstract). In Symposium on Abstraction, Reformula- tion and Approximation (SARA).
  26. Grossmann, I. E. (2002). Review of Nonlinear, Mixed-Integer and Disjunctive Programming Techniques. Optimization and Engineering, 3, 227-252.
  27. Gupta, V., Henziner, T., & Jagadeesan, R. (1997). Robust Timed Automata. In HART'97: Hybrid and Real-time Systems, LNCS 1201, pp. 331-345. Springer-Verlag.
  28. Haroud, D., & Faltings, B. (1994). Global Consistency for Continuous Constraints. In Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, pp. 40-50.
  29. Helmert, M. (2002). Decidability and undecidability results for planning with numerical state variables. In Proceedings of sixth conference on AI Planning Systems (AIPS).
  30. Henzinger, T. (1996). The Theory of Hybrid Automata. In Proceedings of the 11th An- nual Symposium on ogic in Computer Science. Invited tutorial., pp. 278-292. IEEE Computer Society Press.
  31. Henzinger, T., Ho, P.-H., & Wong-Toi, H. (1995). A user guide to HYTECH. In E. Brinksma, W.R. Cleaveland, K.G. Larsen, T. Margaria, and B. Steffen, editors, Tool and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems: (TACAS 95), volume 1019 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 41-71.
  32. Henzinger, T., & Raskin, J.-F. (2000). Robust Undecidability of Timed and Hybrid Systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control. LNCS 1790., pp. 145-159. Springer-Verlag.
  33. Henzinger, T. A., Kopke, P. W., Puri, A., & Varaiya, P. (1998). What's Decidable about Hybrid Automata?. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 57, 94-124.
  34. Herrmann, C. S., & Thielscher, M. (1996). Reasoning about continuous processes. In Clancey, B., & Weld, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 639-644, Portland, OR. MIT Press.
  35. Hoffmann, J., & Edelkamp, S. (2005). The Classical Part of IPC-4: An Overview. Journal of AI Research, To appear.
  36. Hofmann, A., & Williams, B. (2006). Robust execution of temporally flexible plans for bipedal walking devices. In Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Auto- mated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 386-389.
  37. Howey, R., Long, D., & Fox, M. (2004). Val: Automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using pddl. In Proceedings of 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence.
  38. Jónsson, A., & Frank, J. (2000). A Framework for Dynamic Constraint Reasoning using Procedural Constraints. In Proceedings of 14th European Conference on AI, pp. 93-97.
  39. Fox & Long
  40. Jónsson, A., Morris, P., Muscettola, N., Rajan, K., & Smith, B. (2000). Planning in Inter- planetary Space: Theory and Practice. In Proceedings of 5th International Conference on AI Planning Systems, pp. 177-186.
  41. Keller, R. (1976). Formal Verification of Parallel Programs. Communications of the ACM, 19 (7), 371-384.
  42. Kuipers, B. (1984). Commonsense Reasoning about Causality: Deriving Behaviour from Structure. Artificial Intelligence, 24, 169-203.
  43. Laborie, P., & Ghallab, M. (1995). Planning with sharable resource constraints. In Proc. of 14th International Joint Conference on AI. Morgan Kaufmann.
  44. Lamba, N., Dietz, M., Johnson, D., & Boddy, M. (2003). A method for global optimization of large systems of quadratic constraints. In Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Global Constrained Optimization and Constraint Satisfaction (COCOS-03).
  45. Larsen, K. G., Behrmann, G., Brinksma, E., Fehnker, A., Hune, T., Pettersson, P., & Romijn, J. (2001). The use of optimistic and pessimistic resource profiles to inform search in an activity based planner. In Proceedings of 13th Conference on Computer Aided Verification (CAV-01)). Springer Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2102.
  46. Léauté, T., & Williams, B. (2005). Coordinating Agile Systems through the Model-based Execution of Temporal Plans. In Proceedings of 20th National Conference on AI (AAAI), pp. 114-120.
  47. McAllester, D., & Rosenblitt, D. (1991). Systematic Nonlinear Planning. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), Vol. 2, pp. 634-639, Anaheim, California, USA. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
  48. McDermott, D. (2003a). PDDL2.1 -The Art of the Possible? Commentary on Fox and Long. Journal of AI Research, 20, 145-148.
  49. McDermott, D. (2003b). Reasoning about autonomous processes in an estimated-regression planner. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS'03).
  50. McDermott, D. (2005). Reasoning about Autonomous Processes in an Estimated Regression Planner. In Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS), pp. 143-152. AAAI-Press.
  51. McDermott, D., & the AIPS'98 Planning Competition Committee (1998). PDDL-the plan- ning domain definition language. Tech. rep., Available at: www.cs.yale.edu/homes/dvm.
  52. McDermott, D. (2004). The Opt and Optop API. Tech. rep., Yale University.
  53. Muscettola, N. (1993). HSTS: Integrating Planning and Scheduling. In Zweben, M., & Fox, M. (Eds.), Intelligent Scheduling, pp. 169-212. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
  54. Musliner, D. J., Durfee, E. H., & Shin, K. G. (1993). CIRCA: A Cooperative Intelligent Real-time Control Archtecture. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 23 (6), 1561-1574.
  55. Penberthy, J., & Weld, D. (1992). UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial-order planner for ADL. In Proc. Int. Conf. On Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 103-114, Los Altos, CA. Kaufmann.
  56. Penberthy, S., & Weld, D. (1994). Temporal Planning with Continuous Change. In Pro- ceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pp. 1010-1015. AAAI/MIT Press.
  57. Rasmussen, J. I., Larsen, K. G., & Subramani, K. (2004). Resource Optimal Scheduling using Priced Timed Automata. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS), pp. 220-235. Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2988.
  58. Reiter, R. (1996). Natural Actions, Concurrency and Continuous Time in the Situation Calculus. In Aiello, L., Doyle, J., & Shapiro, S. (Eds.), KR-96: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 2-13. Morgan Kaufmann.
  59. Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Secifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press.
  60. Sandewall, E. (1989). Combining Logic and Differential Equations for describing Real World Systems. In Proceedings of Knowledge Representation (KR), pp. 412-420.
  61. Shanahan, M. (1990). Representing Continuous Change in the Event Calculus. In Proceed- ings of 9th European Conference on AI, pp. 598-603.
  62. Shin, J.-A., & Davis, E. (2005). Processes and Continuous Change in a SAT-based Planner. Artificial Intelligence, 166, 194-253.
  63. Smith, D. (2003). The case for durative actions: A commentary on PDDL2.1. Journal of AI Research, 20, 149-154.
  64. Wolfman, S., & Weld, D. (1999). The LPSAT System and its Application to Resource Planning. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  65. Wu, S. J., & Chow, P. T. (1995). Genetic Algorithms for Nonlinear Mixed Discrete-Integer Optimization Problems via Meta-Genetic Parameter Optimization. Engineering Op- timization, 24 (2), 137-159.
  66. Yi, W., Larsen, K., & Pettersson, P. (1997). UPPAAL in a Nutshell. International Journal of Software Tools for Technology Transfer, 1 (1).

Related papers

PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains
Derek Long

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2003

In recent years research in the planning community has moved increasingly towards application of planners to realistic problems involving both time and many types of resources. For example, interest in planning demonstrated by the space research community has inspired work in observation scheduling, planetary rover exploration and spacecraft control domains. Other temporal and resource-intensive domains including logistics planning, plant control and manufacturing have also helped to focus the community on the modelling and reasoning issues that must be confronted to make planning technology meet the challenges of application.

View PDFchevron_right
PDDL - The Planning Domain Definition Language
David E Wilkins

This manual describes the syntax of PDDL, the Planning Domain Definition Language, the problem-specification language for the AIPS-98 planning competition. The language has roughly the the expressiveness of Pednault's ADL [10] for propositions, and roughly the expressiveness of UMCP [6] for actions. Our hope is to encourage empirical evaluation of planner performance, and development of standard sets of problems all in comparable notations. 1 Introduction This manual describes the syntax, and, less formally, the semantics, of the Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL). The language supports the following syntactic features: ffl Basic STRIPS-style actions ffl Conditional effects ffl Universal quantification over dynamic universes (i.e., object creation and destruction), ffl Domain axioms over stratified theories, ffl Specification of safety constraints. ffl Specification of hierarchical actions composed of subactions and subgoals. ffl Management of multiple problems in mul...

View PDFchevron_right
PDDL+ planning with hybrid automata: foundations of translating must behavior
Sergiy Bogomolov

2015

Planning in hybrid domains poses a special challenge due to the involved mixed discrete-continuous dynamics. A recent solving approach for such domains is based on applying model checking techniques on a translation of PDDL+ planning problems to hybrid automata. However, the proposed translation is limited because must behavior is only overapproximated, and hence, processes and events are not reflected exactly. In this paper, we present the theoretical foundation of an exact PDDL+ translation. We propose a schema to convert a hybrid automaton with must transitions into an equivalent hybrid automaton featuring only may transitions.

View PDFchevron_right
Bridging the Modelling Gap: Examining the Expressiveness of Planning Domain Description Languages
Derek Long

Research in planning has advanced rapidly over recent years, spurred partly by a series of international planning competi- tions and the convergence on empirical evaluation that this has encouraged. One of the most important contributions made by the competition sequence is the development of a community standard modelling language, PDDL. This lan- guage has been extended from a relatively simple action de- scription language to include constructs to express the use of resources and other metrically measured quantities and time. The traditional boundaries between planning and scheduling have become increasingly blurred, so that planning research is now regularly considered in application to problems that include management of resources, time, and the combined planning and scheduling of complex concurrent activities. In this paper we examine the extent to which PDDL2.1, the most recent development of the community standard mod- elling language, supports expression of realistic featur...

View PDFchevron_right
Mapping temporal planning constraints into timed automata
Klaus Havelund

Proceedings Eighth International Symposium on Temporal Representation and Reasoning. TIME 2001

Planning and Model Checking are similar in concept. They both deal with reaching a goal state from an initial state by applying specified rules that allow for the transition from one state to another. Exploring the relationship between them is an interesting new research area. We are interested in planning frameworks that combine both planning and scheduling. For that, we focus our attention on real time model checking. As a first step, we developed a mapping from planning domain models into timed automata. Since timed automata are the representation structure of real-time model checkers, we are able to exploit what model checking has to offer for planning domains. In this paper we present the mapping algorithm, which involves translating temporal specifications into timed automata, and list some of the planning domain questions someone can answer by using model checking.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Cognitive Science
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Formal Semantics
  • Real Time Systems
  • Semantic Mapping

    • Cited by

    Automated adaptation of strategic guidance in multiagent coordination
    Romeo Sánchez Nigenda

    Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 2011

    We address multi-agent planning problems in dynamic environments motivated by assisting human teams in disaster emergency response. It is challenging because most goals are revealed during execution, where uncertainty in the duration and outcome of actions plays a significant role, and where unexpected events can cause large disruptions to existing plans. The key to our approach is giving human planners a rich strategy language to constrain the assignment of agents to goals and allow the system to instantiate the strategy during execution, tuning the assignment to the evolving execution state. Our approach outperformed an extensively-trained team coordinating with radios and a traditional command-center organization, and an agent-assisted team using a different approach.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Collaborative Robotic Manipulation: A Use Case of Articulated Objects in Three-dimensions with Gravity
    Riccardo Bertolucci

    2020 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI), 2020

    This paper addresses two intertwined needs for collaborative robots operating in shop-floor environments. The first is the ability to perform complex manipulation operations, such as those on articulated or even flexible objects, in a way robust to a high degree of variability in the actions possibly carried out by human operators during collaborative tasks. The second is encoding in such operations a basic knowledge about physical laws (e.g., gravity), and their effects on the models used by the robot to plan its actions, to generate more robust plans. We adopt the manipulation in three-dimensional space of articulated objects as an effective use case to ground both needs, and we use a variant of the Planning Domain Definition Language to integrate the planning process with a notion of gravity. Different complexity levels in modelling gravity are evaluated, which tradeoff model faithfulness and performance. A thorough validation of the framework is done in simulation using a dual-a...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Automated Planning Encodings for the Manipulation of Articulated Objects in 3D with Gravity
    Riccardo Bertolucci

    Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2019

    The manipulation of articulated objects plays an important role in real-world robot tasks, both in home and industrial environments. A lot of attention has been devoted to the development of ad hoc approaches and algorithms for generating the sequence of movements the robot has to perform in order to manipulate the object. Such approaches can hardly generalise on different settings, and are usually focused on 2D manipulations. In this paper we introduce a set of PDDL+ formulations for performing automated manipulation of articulated objects in a three-dimensional workspace by a dual-arm robot. Presented formulations differ in terms of how gravity is modelled, considering different trade-offs between modelling accuracy and planning performance, and between humanreadability and parsability by planners. Our experimental analysis compares the formulations on a range of domain-independent planners, that aim at generating plans for allowing a dual-arm robot to manipulate articulated objects of different sizes. Validation is performed in simulation on a Baxter robot.

    View PDFchevron_right
    A General Approach to Exploit Model Predictive Control for Guiding Automated Planning Search in Hybrid Domains
    Faizan Bhatti

    Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2019

    Automated planning techniques are increasingly exploited in real-world applications, thanks to their flexibility and robustness. Hybrid domains, those that require to reason both with discrete and continuous aspects, are particularly challenging to handle with existing planning approaches due to their complex dynamics. In this paper we present a general approach that allows to combine the strengths of automated planning and control systems to support reasoning in hybrid domains. In particular, we propose an architecture to integrate Model Predictive Control (MPC) techniques from the field of control systems into an automated planner, to guide the effective exploration of the search space.

    View PDFchevron_right
    SAT-Reach : A Bounded Model Checker for Affine Hybrid Systems
    rajarshi ray

    ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems

    Bounded model checking (BMC) is well-known to be undecidable even for simple hybrid systems. Existing work targeted for a wide class of non-linear hybrid systems reduces the BMC problem to the satisfiability problem of an SMT formula encoding the hybrid system dynamics. Consequently, the satisfiability of the formula is deduced with a δ -decision procedure. However, the encoded formula can be complex for large automaton and for deep exploration causing the decision procedure to be inefficient. Additionally, a generalized decision procedure can be inefficient for hybrid systems with simple dynamics. In this paper, we propose a BMC algorithm built upon the foundation of the CEGAR technique and targeted for hybrid systems with piecewise affine dynamics, modeled as a hybrid automaton. In particular, our algorithm begins by searching an abstract counterexample in the discrete state-space of the automaton. We check whether a discovered abstract counterexample is spurious or real by a two-...

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved