Abstract
This paper presents a family of results on the computational complexity of planning: classical, conformant, and conditional with full or partial observability. Attention is restricted to plans of polynomiallybounded length. For conditional planning, restriction to plans of polynomial size is also considered. For this analysis, a planning domain is described by a transition relation encoded in classical propositional logic. Given the widespread use of satisfiability-based planning methods, this is a rather natural choice. Moreover, this allows us to develop a unified representation—in second-order propositional logic—of the range of planning problems considered. By describing a wide range of results within a single framework, the paper sheds new light on how planning complexity is affected by common assumptions such as nonconcurrency, determinism and polynomial-time decidability of executability of actions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Christer Bäckström and Bernhard Nebel. Complexity results for SAS+ planning. Computational Intelligence, 11(4):625–655, 1995.
Chitta Baral, Vladik Kreinovich, and Raul Trejo. Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in presence of incompleteness. Artificial Intelligence, 122(1–2):241–267, 2000.
Tom Bylander. The computational complexity of propostional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2):165–204, 1994.
Giuseppe De Giacomo and Moshe Vardi. Automata-theoretic approach to planning for temporally extended goals. In Proc. of 5th European Conf. on Planning, 1999.
Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, Gerald Pfeifer, and Axel Polleres. Planning under incomplete information. In Proc. Computational Logic 2000, 2000.
Kutluhan Erol, Dana S. Nau, and V.S. Subrahmanian. Complexity, decidability and undecidability results for domain-independent planning. Artificial Intelligence, 76(1–1):75–88, 1995.
Enrico Giunchiglia and Vladimir Lifschitz. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI-98, pages 623–630, 1998.
Patrik Haslum and Peter Jonsson. Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In Proc. of 5th European Conf. on Planning, 1999.
Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. of the 10th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 359–379, 1992.
Michael Littman. Probabilistic propositional planning: representations and complexity. In Proc. of AAAI-97, pages 748–754, 1997.
Michael Littman, Judy Goldsmith, and Martin Mundhenk. The computational complexity of probabilistic planning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 9:1–36, 1998.
Norman McCain and Hudson Turner. Causal theories of action and change. In Proc. of AAAI-97, pages 460–465, 1997.
Christos Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison Wesley, 1994.
Jussi Rintanen. Constructing conditional plans by a theorem prover. Journal ofArtificial Intelligence Research, 10:323–352, 1999.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Turner, H. (2002). Polynomial-Length Planning Spans the Polynomial Hierarchy. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Ianni, G., Leone, N. (eds) Logics in Artificial Intelligence. JELIA 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2424. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45757-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45757-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44190-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45757-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive