Skip to main content

Polynomial-Length Planning Spans the Polynomial Hierarchy

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2424))

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

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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Christer Bäckström and Bernhard Nebel. Complexity results for SAS+ planning. Computational Intelligence, 11(4):625–655, 1995.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Tom Bylander. The computational complexity of propostional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2):165–204, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Giuseppe De Giacomo and Moshe Vardi. Automata-theoretic approach to planning for temporally extended goals. In Proc. of 5th European Conf. on Planning, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Thomas Eiter, Wolfgang Faber, Nicola Leone, Gerald Pfeifer, and Axel Polleres. Planning under incomplete information. In Proc. Computational Logic 2000, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Enrico Giunchiglia and Vladimir Lifschitz. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI-98, pages 623–630, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Patrik Haslum and Peter Jonsson. Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In Proc. of 5th European Conf. on Planning, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. of the 10th European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 359–379, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Michael Littman. Probabilistic propositional planning: representations and complexity. In Proc. of AAAI-97, pages 748–754, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Michael Littman, Judy Goldsmith, and Martin Mundhenk. The computational complexity of probabilistic planning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 9:1–36, 1998.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Norman McCain and Hudson Turner. Causal theories of action and change. In Proc. of AAAI-97, pages 460–465, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Christos Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison Wesley, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jussi Rintanen. Constructing conditional plans by a theorem prover. Journal ofArtificial Intelligence Research, 10:323–352, 1999.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics