Skip to main content
Log in

A new goal ordering for incremental planning

  • Published:
The Journal of Supercomputing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Goal ordering is very important for the incremental planning, and special attention has been paid to determine the ordering constraints between the atomic goals to achieve the orderings for all possible plans. However, not all goal orderings work well on most benchmarks. This paper introduces a new-class goal ordering, called the admissible goal ordering, which is less restrictive and matches with the characteristics of most benchmarks better than the existing goal orderings. Since the proposed ordering relation is hard to decide, an approximate approach for computing the admissible ordering relation that can be determined in polynomial time is presented. Furthermore, an algorithm for extraction of the total-ordered subsets of goals based on the admissible relation is developed. The total-ordered subsets lead to the partition of an original task into smaller subtasks that can be incrementally planned. The experimental results obtained by using almost all propositional STRIPS benchmarks from the international planning competitions show that the proposed goal ordering can significantly improve the planning performance compared with the state-of-the-art satisficing planning system. In comparison with the reasonable ordering and no-goal ordering, the performance improvements in the proposed ordering are substantial and almost dramatic on larger tasks.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koehler J, Hoffmann J (2000) On reasonable and forced goal orderings and their use in an agenda-driven planning algorithm. J Artif Intell Res 12:338–386

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen Y, Wah BW, Hsu CW (2006) Temporal planning using subgoal partitioning and resolution in SGPlan. J Artif Intell Res 26:323–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alford R, Shivashankar V, Roberts M, Frank J, Aha DW(2016) Hierarchical planning: relating task and goal decomposition with task sharing. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2016, pp 3022–3029

  4. Asai M, Fukunaga A (2015) Solving large-scale planning problems by decomposition and macro generation. In: Proceedings of ICAPS 2015, pp 16–24

  5. Gardiol NH, Kaelbling LP (2007) Action-space partitioning for planning. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2007, pp 980–986

  6. Chen Y, Xu Y, Yao G (2009) Stratified Planning. Proc. of IJCAI 2009:1665–1670

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hoffmann J, Porteous J, Sebastia L (2004) Ordered landmarks in planning. J Artif Intell Res 22:215–278

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Hsu CW, Wah BW, Chen Y (2007) Subgoal ordering and granularity control for incremental planning. Int J Artif Intell Tools 16(4):707–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast plan generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39:127–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vernhes S, Infantes G, Vidal V (2013) Problem splitting using heuristic search in landmark orderings. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp 2401–2407

  12. Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ (1971) Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoffmann J (2005) Where “ignoring delete lists” works: local search topology in planning benchmarks. J Artif Intell Res 24:685–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bylander T (1994) The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artif Intell 69(1–2):165–204

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Li J, Mao M, Uhlig F, Zhang Y (2018) Z-type neural-dynamics for time-varying nonlinear optimization under a linear equality constraint with robot application. J Comput Appl Math 2018(327):155–166

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 61300095, 61502088), the Guangdong Outstanding Young University Teachers Training Program (Nos. YQ2015242, YQ2015241), the Science and Technology Program of Zhongshan City (Nos. 2016B2158, 2015B2307).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruishi Liang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liang, R., Mao, M., Ma, H. et al. A new goal ordering for incremental planning. J Supercomput 76, 3713–3728 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2627-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2627-8

Keywords

Navigation