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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
Chen Y, Wah BW, Hsu CW (2006) Temporal planning using subgoal partitioning and resolution in SGPlan. J Artif Intell Res 26:323–369
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
Asai M, Fukunaga A (2015) Solving large-scale planning problems by decomposition and macro generation. In: Proceedings of ICAPS 2015, pp 16–24
Gardiol NH, Kaelbling LP (2007) Action-space partitioning for planning. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2007, pp 980–986
Chen Y, Xu Y, Yao G (2009) Stratified Planning. Proc. of IJCAI 2009:1665–1670
Hoffmann J, Porteous J, Sebastia L (2004) Ordered landmarks in planning. J Artif Intell Res 22:215–278
Hsu CW, Wah BW, Chen Y (2007) Subgoal ordering and granularity control for incremental planning. Int J Artif Intell Tools 16(4):707–723
Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast plan generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302
Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39:127–177
Vernhes S, Infantes G, Vidal V (2013) Problem splitting using heuristic search in landmark orderings. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 2013, pp 2401–2407
Fikes RE, Nilsson NJ (1971) Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208
Hoffmann J (2005) Where “ignoring delete lists” works: local search topology in planning benchmarks. J Artif Intell Res 24:685–758
Bylander T (1994) The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artif Intell 69(1–2):165–204
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
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-018-2627-8