Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fully deadline-coupled planning: One step at a time

  • Communications
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 1991)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 542))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 180 Accesses

Abstract

In planning situations involving tight deadlines a commonsense reasoner may spend substantial amount of the available time in reasoning toward and about the (partial) plan. This reasoning involves, but is not limited to, partial plan formulation, making decisions about available and conceivable alternatives, plan sequencing, and also plan failure and revision. The key observation is that the time taken in reasoning about a plan brings the deadline closer. The reasoner should therefore take account of the passage of time during that same reasoning, and this accounting must continuously affect every decision under time-pressure. Step-logics were introduced as a mechanism for reasoning situated in time. We employ them here to create a step-logic planner that lets a time-situated reasoner keep track of an approaching deadline as she/he makes (and enacts) her/his plan, thereby treating all facets of planning (including plan-formation and its simultaneous or subsequent execution) as deadline-coupled.

This is an extended version of our paper [Kraus et al., 1990]. This research was supported in part by NSF grant IRI-8907122, and in part by U.S. Army Research Office grant DAAL03-88-K0087. Our thanks to Michael Miller, James Hendler and Chitta Baral for their helpful comments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J. and Koomen, J. 1983. Planning using a temporal world model. In Proceedings of the 8th Int'l Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 741–747.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boddy, M. and Dean, T. 1989. Solving time-dependent planning problems. In Proceedings of IJCAI-89, pages 979–984, Detroit, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Charniak, E. and McDermott, D. 1985. Introduction to artificial intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, P. and Levesque, H. 1990. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davis, D. E. 1988. Inferring ignorance from the locality of visual perception. In Proceedings, AAAI-88, St. Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dean, T. and Boddy, M. 1988. Reasoning about partially ordered events. Artificial Intelligence, 36(3):375–399.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dean, T. and Boddy, M. 1988. An analysis of time-dependent planning. In Proceedings, AAAI-88, pages 49–54, St. Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dean, T. and McDermott, D. 1987. Temporal data base management. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1):1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  9. [Dean et al., 1988] Dean, T., Firby, R. J., and Miller, D. 1988. Hierarchical planning involving deadlines, travel time and resources. Computational Intelligence, 4:381–389.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dean, T. 1984. Planning and temporal reasoning under uncertainty. In IEEE Workshop on Principles of Knowledge Based Systems, Denver, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dean, T. 1987. Intractability and time-dependent planning. In Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 245–266. Morgan-Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drapkin, J. and Perlis, D. 1986. A preliminary excursion into step-logics. In Proceedings SIGART International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pages 262–269. ACM. Knoxville, Tennessee.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Drapkin, J. and Perlis, D. 1986. Step-logics: An alternative approach to limited reasoning. In Proceedings of the European Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, pages 160–163. Brighton, England.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Elgot-Drapkin, J. and Perlis, D. 1990. Reasoning situated in time I: Basic concepts. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 2(1):75–98.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Elgot-Drapkin, J. 1988. Step-logic: Reasoning Situated in Time. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Georgeff, M. and Lansky, A. 1988. Reactive reasoning and planning. In Proceedings AAAI-88, pages 677–682.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ginsberg, M. L. and Smith, D. E. 1987. Reasoning about action I: A possible worlds approach. In Brown, F. M., editor, Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop on The Frame Problem, pages 233–258, Lawrence, KS. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ginsberg, M. L. and Smith, D. E. 1987. Reasoning about action II: The qualification problem. In Brown, F. M., editor, Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop on The Frame Problem, pages 259–287, Lawrence, KS. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Haas, A. 1985. Possible events, actual events, and robots. Computational Intelligence, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Haugh, B. A. 1987. Simple causal minimizations for temporal persistence and projection. In Proceedings of the sixth national conference on artificial intelligence, pages 218–223.

    Google Scholar 

  21. [Hendler et al., 1990] Hendler, J., Tate, A., and Drummond, M. 1990. Systems and techniques: AI planning. AI Magazine, 11(2):61–77.

    Google Scholar 

  22. [Hendler et al., 1989] Hendler, E., Cooper, G., and Heckerman, D. 1989. Reflection and action under scare resources: Theoretical principles and empirical study. In Proceedings of IJCAI-89, pages 1121–1127, Detroit, Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hendler, E. J. 1988. Reasoning under varying and uncertain resource constraints. In Proceeding, AAAI-88, pages 111–116, St. Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kanazawa, K. and Dean, T. 1989. A model for projection and action. In Proceedings of IJCAI-89, pages 985–990.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kauts, H. 1986. The logic of persistence. In Proceedings, AAAI-86, pages 401–405.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kraus, S. and Perlis, D. 1989. Assessing others' knowledge and ignorance. In Proc. of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pages 220–225, Charlotte, North Carolina.

    Google Scholar 

  27. [Kraus et al., 1990] Kraus, S., Nirkhe, M., and Perlis, P. 1990. Deadline-coupled real-time planning. In Proceedings of 1990 Darpa workshop on Innovative Approaches to Planning, Scheduling and Control, pages 100–108, San Diego, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lansky, A. 1986. A representation of parallel activity based on events, structure, and causality. In Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 123–159. Morgan-Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lansky, A. 1988. Localized event-based reasoning for multiagent domains. Computational Intelligence, 4:319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McDermott, D. 1978. Planning and acting. Cognitive Science, 2:71–109.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McDermott, D. 1982. A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans. Cognitive Science, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McDermott, D. 1987. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33:379–412.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morgenstern, L. 1991. Knowledge and the frame problem. In The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nilsson, N. 1983. Artificial intelligence prepares for 2001. AI Magazine, 4(4):7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  35. [Perlis et al., 1990] Perlis, D., Elgot-Drapkin, J., and Miller, M. 1990. Stop the world! —I want to think! Submitted to International J. of Intelligent Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pollack, M. E. and Ringuette, M. 1990. Introducing the tileworld: Experimentally evaluating agent architectures. In Proceedings, AAAI-90, pages 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Russell, S. and Wefald, E. 1989. Principles of metareasoning. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan-Kaufman.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilensky, R. 1983. Planning and understanding. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, 20742, College Park, MD

    Madhura Nirkhe, Sarit Kraus & Donald Perlis

  2. Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, 20742, College Park, MD

    Madhura Nirkhe, Sarit Kraus & Donald Perlis

Authors
  1. Madhura Nirkhe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarit Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald Perlis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Z. W. Ras M. Zemankova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1991 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nirkhe, M., Kraus, S., Perlis, D. (1991). Fully deadline-coupled planning: One step at a time. In: Ras, Z.W., Zemankova, M. (eds) Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. ISMIS 1991. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 542. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-54563-8_122

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-54563-8_122

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-54563-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-38466-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation