Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning via model checking: A decision procedure for AR

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Recent Advances in AI Planning (ECP 1997)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1348))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this paper we propose a new approach to planning based on a “high level action language”, called AR, and “model checking”. AR is an expressive formalism which is able to handle, among other things, ramifications and non-deterministic effects. We define a decision procedure for planning in AR which is based on “symbolic model checking”, a technique which has been successfully applied in hardware and software verification. The decision procedure always terminates with an optimal solution or with failure if no solution exists. We have constructed a planner, called MBP, which implements the decision procedure.

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. Andrew Baker. Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 49:5–23, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Avrim Blum and Merrick Furst. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In Proc. of IJCAI-95, pages 1636–1642, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. E. Bryant. Symbolic Boolean manipolation with ordered binary-decision diagrams. ACM Computing Surveys, 24(3):293–318, September 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J.R. Burch, E.M. Clarke, K.L. McMillan, D.L. Dill, and Hwang L.J. Symbolic model checking: 102° states and beyond. Information and Computation, 98(2):142–170, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Clarke, O. Grunberg, and D. Long. Model checking. In Proc. of the International Summer School on Deductive Program Design, Marktoberdorf, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Enrico Giunchiglia. Determining ramifications in the situation calculus. In Proc. of KR-96., 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Enrico Giunchiglia, G. Neelakantan Kartha, and Vladimir Lifschitz. Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence, 1997. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cordell Green. Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Proc. of IJCAI, pages 219–240, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  9. J. Hertzberg and S. Thiebaux. Turning an Action Formalism into a Planner — A Case Study. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):617–654, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Henry Kautz and Bart Selman. Pushing the Envelope: Planning, Propositional Logic, and Stochastic Search. In Proc. AAAI-96, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vladimir Lifschitz. Two components of an action language. In Working Papers of the Third Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fangzhen Lin and Raymond Reiter. State constraints revisited. In Working Papers of the Second Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  13. C. Pain-Barre and C. Schwind. Constructing Action Graphs for Planning. In European Workshop on Planning (EWPS95), pages 373–388. Malik Ghallab, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J. Penberthy and D. Weld. UCPOP: A sound, complete, partial order planner for adl. In Proc. of KR-92, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stuart Russel. Efficient memory bounded search algorithms. In Proc. of ECAI-92, pages 1–5, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Erik Sandewall. Features and fluents: A systematic approach to the representation of knowledge about dynamical systems. Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-92-30, Linköping University, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  17. W. Stephan and S. Biundo. A New Logical Framework for Deductive Planning. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pages 32–38. Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Manuela Veloso. Learning by analogical reasoning in general problem solving. PhD thesis, 1992. CMU, CS Techn. Report CMU-CS-92-174.

    Google Scholar 

  19. M. Winslett. Reasoning about actions with a possible models approach. In Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pages 89–93, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRST, 38100, Povo, Italy

    Alessandro Cimatti, Fausto Giunchiglia & Paolo Traverso

  2. DIST, University of Genoa, Viale Causa 13, 16145, Genova, Italy

    Enrico Giunchiglia

  3. DISA, University of Trento, Via Inama 5, 38100, Trento, Italy

    Fausto Giunchiglia

Authors
  1. Alessandro Cimatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Enrico Giunchiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fausto Giunchiglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paolo Traverso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Sam Steel Rachid Alami

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cimatti, A., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Traverso, P. (1997). Planning via model checking: A decision procedure for AR. In: Steel, S., Alami, R. (eds) Recent Advances in AI Planning. ECP 1997. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1348. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63912-8_81

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-63912-8_81

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-63912-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-69665-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation