Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State Space Planning Using Transaction Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages (PADL 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 9131))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

State space planning algorithms have been considered as one of the main classical planning techniques to solve classical planning problems since 1960. In this paper, we show that Transaction Logic is an appropriate language and framework to study and compare these planning algorithms, which enables one to have more efficient planners in logic programming frameworks. Specifically, we take \(\textit{STRIPS}\) planning and forward state space planning algorithms, and show that the specification of these algorithms in Transaction Logic lets one implement complicated planning algorithms in declarative programming languages (e.g. Prolog). We first provide a formal representation of these planning algorithms in Transaction Logic, which can be used to automatically translate \( \textit{STRIPS}\) planning problems in PDDL to Transaction Logic rules. Then, we use the resulting Transaction Logic rules to solve planning problems and compare the performance of those algorithms in our simple interpreter implemented in XSB Prolog. We use several case studies to show how the linear \( \textit{STRIPS}\) planning algorithm is faster than forward state space search. Our experiments highlight the fact that a planner implemented by logic programming framework can become faster if an appropriate planning algorithm is applied.

This work was supported, in part, by the NSF grant 0964196.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 34.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 44.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bacchus, F.: AIPS-00 planning competition, May 2000. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/aips2000

  2. Barták, R., Toropila, D.: Solving sequential planning problems via constraint satisfaction. Fundam. Inform. 99(2), 125–145 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/FI-2010-242

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Barták, R., Zhou, N.-F.: On modeling planning problems: experience from the petrobras challenge. In: Castro, F., Gelbukh, A., González, M. (eds.) MICAI 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8266, pp. 466–477. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45111-9_40

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Barták, R., Zhou, N.: Using tabled logic programming to solve the petrobras planning problem. TPLP 14(4–5), 697–710 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1471068414000295

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Basseda, R., Kifer, M., Bonner, A.J.: Planning with transaction logic. In: Kontchakov, R., Mugnier, M.-L. (eds.) RR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8741, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Bibel, W.: A deductive solution for plan generation. New Generation Computing 4(2), 115–132 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Bibel, W.: A deductive solution for plan generation. In: Schmidt, J.W., Thanos, C. (eds.) Foundations of Knowledge Base Management. Information Systems, pp. 453–473. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bibel, W., del Cerro, L.F., Fronhfer, B., Herzig, A.: Plan generation by linear proofs: on semantics. In: Metzing, D. (ed.) GWAI-89 13th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Informatik-Fachberichte, vol. 216, pp. 49–62. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming. In: Int’l Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 257–282. MIT Press, Budapest, June 1993

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: Applications of transaction logic to knowledge representation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) ICTL1994. LNCS, vol. 827, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming (or a logic of declarative and procedural knowledge). Tech. Rep. CSRI-323, University of Toronto, November 1995. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bonner/transaction-logic.html

  12. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Concurrency and communication in transaction logic. In: Joint Int’l Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 142–156. MIT Press, Bonn, September 1996

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: A logic for programming database transactions. In: Chomicki, J., Saake, G. (eds.) Logics for Databases and Information Systems, ch. 5, pp. 117–166. Kluwer Academic Publishers, March 1998

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: An overview of transaction logic. Theoretical Computer Science 133 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cresswell, S., Smaill, A., Richardson, J.: Deductive synthesis of recursive plans in linear logic. In: Biundo, S., Fox, M. (eds.) Recent Advances in AI Planning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1809, pp. 252–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: Perspectives on logic-based approaches for reasoning about actions and change. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds.) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 6565, pp. 259–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Ernst, M.D., Millstein, T.D., Weld, D.S.: Automatic sat-compilation of planning problems. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI 1997, vol. 2, pp. 1169–1176. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1997). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1622270.1622325

  18. Erol, K., Hendler, J.A., Nau, D.S.: UMCP: a sound and complete procedure for hierarchical task-network planning. In: Hammond, K.J. (ed.) AAAI 1994, pp. 249–254. University of Chicago, Chicago (1994). http://www.aaai.org/Library/AIPS/1994/aips94-042.php

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2(34), 189–208 (1971)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Fodor, P., Kifer, M.: Tabling for transaction logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP 2010, pp. 199–208. ACM, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fodor, P., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic with defaults and argumentation theories. In: Gallagher, J.P., Gelfond, M. (eds.) Technical Communications of the 27th International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2011, July 6–10, 2011, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. LIPIcs, vol. 11, pp. 162–174. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ICLP.2011.162

  22. Fox, M., Long, D.: Pddl2.1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Int. Res. 20(1), 61–124 (2003). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1622452.1622454

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Knecht, M., Schaub, T.: plasp: A prototype for PDDL-based planning in ASP. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 358–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, R., Schaub, T.: Gearing up for effective ASP planning. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds.) Correct Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 7265, pp. 296–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2363344.2363364

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Geffner, H.: Pddl 2.1: Representation vs. computation. J. Artif. Int. Res. 20(1), 139–144 (2003). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1622452.1622457

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 193–210 (1998). http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/etai/1998/007/

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Gerevini, A., Haslum, P., Long, D., Saetti, A., Dimopoulos, Y.: Deterministic planning in the fifth international planning competition: PDDL3 and experimental evaluation of the planners. Artif. Intell. 173(5–6), 619–668 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.10.012

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghallab, M., Isi, C.K., Penberthy, S., Smith, D.E., Sun, Y., Weld, D.: PDDL - The Planning Domain Definition Language. Tech. rep., CVC TR-98-003/DCS TR-1165, Yale Center for Computational Vision and Control (1998). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.37.212

  29. Giunchiglia, E., Massarotto, A., Sebastiani, R.: Act, and the rest will follow: exploiting determinism in planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth National/Tenth Conference on Artificial Intelligence/Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1998/IAAI 1998, pp. 948–953. American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park (1998). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=295240.295931

  30. Green, C.: Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1969, pp. 219–239. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1969). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1624562.1624585

  31. Gregory, P., Long, D., Fox, M.: Constraint based planning with composable substate graphs. In: Coelho, H., Studer, R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Proceedings of ECAI 2010–19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal, August 16–20, 2010. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 453–458. IOS Press (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-606-5-453

  32. Hölldobler, S., Schneeberger, J.: A new deductive approach to planning. New Generation Computing 8(3), 225–244 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Kahramanogullari, O.: Towards planning as concurrency. In: Hamza, M.H. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 387–393. IASTED/ACTA Press (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kahramanogullari, O.: On linear logic planning and concurrency. Information and Computation 207(11), 1229–1258 (2009). special Issue: 2nd International Conference on Language and Automata Theory and Applications (LATA 2008)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 1992, pp. 359–363. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York (1992). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=145448.146725

  36. Lifschitz, V.: Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138(12), 39–54 (2002). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370202001868. knowledge Representation and Logic Programming

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. McDermott, D.V.: The 1998 AI planning systems competition. AI Magazine 21(2), 35–55 (2000). http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/1506

    Google Scholar 

  38. McDermott, D.V.: PDDL2.1 - the art of the possible? commentary on fox and long. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 20, 145–148 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1613/jair.1996

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Nau, D., Ghallab, M., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nilsson, N.: Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Tioga Publ. Co., Paolo Alto (1980)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  41. Pednault, E.P.D.: Adl: Exploring the middle ground between strips and the situation calculus. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 324–332. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1989). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=112922.112954

  42. Rezk, M., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic with partially defined actions. J. Data Semantics 1(2), 99–131 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith, D.E.: The case for durative actions: A commentary on PDDL2.1. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 20, 149–154 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1613/jair.1997

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Son, T.C., Baral, C., Tran, N., Mcilraith, S.: Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set planning. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7(4), 613–657 (2006). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1183278.1183279

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Son, T.C., Pontelli, E., Sakama, C.: Logic programming for multiagent planning with negotiation. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 99–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02846-5_13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Srivastava, S., Immerman, N., Zilberstein, S., Zhang, T.: Directed search for generalized plans using classical planners. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-2011). AAAI, June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stefik, M.J.: Planning with Constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, CA, USA (1980). aAI8016868

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhou, N., Dovier, A.: A tabled prolog program for solving sokoban. In: IEEE 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2011, Boca Raton, FL, USA, November 7–9, 2011, pp. 896–897. IEEE Computer Society (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2011.145

  49. Zhou, N., Dovier, A.: A tabled prolog program for solving sokoban. Fundam. Inform. 124(4), 561–575 (2013). http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/FI-2013-849

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, NY, 11794, USA

    Reza Basseda & Michael Kifer

Authors
  1. Reza Basseda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Kifer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Reza Basseda or Michael Kifer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

    Enrico Pontelli

  2. Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA

    Tran Cao Son

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Basseda, R., Kifer, M. (2015). State Space Planning Using Transaction Logic. In: Pontelli, E., Son, T. (eds) Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages. PADL 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9131. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19686-2_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19686-2_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-19685-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-19686-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation