Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

LinGraph: a graph-based automated planner for concurrent task planning based on linear logic

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce an automated planner for deterministic, concurrent domains, formulated as a graph-based theorem prover for a propositional fragment of intuitionistic linear logic, relying on the previously established connection between intuitionistic linear logic and planning problems. The new graph-based theorem prover we introduce improves planning performance by reducing proof permutations that are irrelevant to planning problems particularly in the presence of large numbers of objects and agents with identical properties (e.g. robots within a swarm, or parts in a large factory). We first present our graph-based automated planner, the Linear Logic Graph Planner (LinGraph). Subsequently we illustrate its application for planning within a concurrent manufacturing domain and provide comparisons with four existing automated planners, BlackBox, Symba-2, Metis and the Temporal Fast Downward (TFD), covering a wide range of state-of-the-art automated planning techniques and implementations. We show that even though LinGraph does not rely on any heuristics, it still outperforms these systems for concurrent domains with large numbers of identical objects and agents. These gains persist even when existing methods on symmetry reduction and numerical fluents are used, with LinGraph capable of handling problems with thousands of objects. Following these results, we also show that plan construction with LinGraph is equivalent to multiset rewriting systems, formally relating LinGraph to intuitionistic linear logic.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alkhazraji Y, Katz M, Matmüller R, Pommerening F, Shleyfman A, Wehrle M (2014) Metis: arming fast downward with pruning and incremental computation Eighth international planning competition, deterministic part, pp 88–92

    Google Scholar 

  2. Belta C, Bicchi A, Egerstedt M, Frazzoli E, Klavins E, Pappas G (2007) Symbolic planning and control of robot motion - grand challenges of robotics. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 14(1):61– 70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Blum AL, Furst ML (1995) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif Intell 90(1):1636–1642

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bonet B, Geffner H (2001) Planning as heuristic search. Artif Intell 129(1-2):5–33

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonet B, Loerincs G, Geffner H (1997) A robust and fast action selection mechanism for planning Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 714–719

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cervesato I, Scedrov A (2009) Relating state-based and process-based concurrency through linear logic. Inf Comput 207(10):1044–1077

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Chrpa L (2006) Linear logic in planning Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, pp 26–29

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cimatti A, Pistore M, Roveri M, Traverso P (2003) Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking. Artif Intell 147(1–2):35–84

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Coles A, Coles A, Olaya AG, Jimenez S, Lopez CL, Sanner S, Yoon S (2012) A survey of the seventh international planning competition. AI Mag 33(1)

  11. Cresswell S, Smaill A, Richardson J (2000) Deductive synthesis of recursive plans in linear logic. In: Biundo S, Fox M (eds) Recent advances in AI planning, volume 1809 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 252–264

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cushing W, Kambhampati S, Mausam, Weld DS (2007) When is temporal planning really temporal? Proceedings of the international journal of conference on artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp 1852–1859

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dimopoulos Y, Nebel B, Koehler J (1997) Encoding planning problems in nonmonotonic logic programs Recent advances in AI planning, vol 1348, pp 169–181

  14. Dixon L, Smaill A, Tsang T (2009) Plans, actions and dialogue using linear logic. J Log Lang Inf 18:251–289

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Domshlak C, Katz M, Shleyfman A (2012) Enhanced symmetry breaking in cost-optimal planning as forward search Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eiter T, Faber W, Leone N, Pfeifer G, Polleres A (2003) Answer set planning under action costs. J Artif Intell Res 19:25–71

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Eyerich P, Keller T, Aldinger J, Dornhege C (2014) Preferring preferred operators in temporal fast downward Eighth international planning competition (IPC 2014), deterministic part, pp 88–92

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eyerich P, Mattmüller R, Röger G (2009) Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fox M, Long D (1999) The detection and exploitation of symmetry in planning problems Proceedings of the international journal conference on artificial intelligence, pp 956–961

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fuentetaja R, de la Rosa T (2015) Compiling irrelevant objects to counters. Special case of creation planning. AI Commun:1–33. Preprint

  21. Geffner H, Bonet B (2013) A concise introduction to models and methods for automated planning. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning 7(2):1–141

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gent IP, Jefferson C, Miguel I (2006) MINION: a fast, scalable, constraint solver Proceedings of the european conference on artificial intelligence, pp 98–102

    Google Scholar 

  23. Girard J-Y (1987) Linear logic. Theor Comput Sci 50(1):1–102

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Helmert M (2006) The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res 26:191–246

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Helmert M, Geffner H (2008) Unifying the causal graph and additive heuristics Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling, pp 140–147

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hickmott SL, Rintanen J, Thiébaux S, White LB (2007) Planning via petri net unfolding Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 7, pp 1904–1911

  27. Hoffmann J, System Metric-FF Planning (2003) Translating “Ignoring delete lists” to numeric state variables. J Artif Intell Res 20:291–341

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast plan generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14(1):253–302

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Jacopin E (1993) Classical AI planning as theorem proving: the case of a fragment of linear logic. CA, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kahramanogullari O (2009) On linear logic planning and concurrency. Inf Comput 207(11):1229–1258

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Kambhampati S (2000) Planning graph as a: (Dynamic) CSP: exploiting EBL, DDB and other CSP search techniques in GraphPlan. J Artif Intell Res 12:1–34

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Kanovich M, Vauzeilles J (2001) The classical AI planning problems in the mirror of horn linear logic: semantics, expressibility, complexity. Math Struct Comput Sci 11(6):689–716

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Kanovich M, Vauzeilles J (2007) Strong planning under uncertainty in domains with numerous but identical elements (a generic approach). Theor Comput Sci 379(1-2):84–119

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Kanovich MI (1994) Linear logic as a logic of computations. Ann Pure Appl Logic 67(1):183–212

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Kautz H, Selman B (1992) Planning as satisfiability Proceedings of the european conference on artificial intelligence. Wiley, pp 359–363

  37. Kautz H, Selman B (1998) Blackbox: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving Proceedings of the AIPS98 workshop on planning as combinatorial search, pp 58–60

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kungas P (2003) Linear logic for domain-independent AI planning. Trento, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  39. Levesque HJ, Reiter R, Lespérance Y, Lin F, Scherl RB (1997) Golog: a logic programming language for dynamic domains. J Log Program 31(1):59–83

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Lifschitz V (1999) Answer set planning. In: Gelfond M, Leone N, Pfeifer G (eds) Logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, volume 1730 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 373–374

    Google Scholar 

  41. Martí-Oliet N, Meseguer J (1989) From petri nets to linear logic. In: Pitt DH, Rydeheard DE, Dybjer P, Pitts A, Poigne A (eds) Category theory and computer science, volume 389 of lecture notes in computer science, pp 313–340

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Masseron M, Tollu C, Vauzeilles J (1993) Generating plans in linear logic I. Actions as proofs. Theor Comput Sci 113(2):349–370

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. McAllester D, Rosenblitt D (1991) Systematic nonlinear planning Proceedings of the national conference of the american association for artificial intelligence (AAAI-91), pp 634–639

    Google Scholar 

  44. McCarthy J (1969) Some philosophical problems from the stand-point of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4:463–502

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Minker J (1993) An overview of nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. J Log Program, Special Issue 17:95–126

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Nau DS (2007) Current trends in automated planning. AI Mag 28(4):43

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pfenning F (2002) Lecture notes on linear logic. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University

  48. Pochter N, Rosenschein JS, Zohar A (2011) Exploiting problem symmetries in state-based planners Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence

    Google Scholar 

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

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Riddle P, Barley M, Franco S, Douglas J (2015) Analysis of bagged representations in PDDL Heuristics and search for domain-independent planning, pp 71–79

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rintanen J (2012) Planning as satisfiability: heuristics. Artif Intell 193:45–86

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Robinson N, Gretton C, Pham DN, Sattar A (2009) SAT-based parallel planning using a split representation of actions Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling

    Google Scholar 

  53. Russel S, Norvig P (1995) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Prentice Hall

  54. Saranli U, Pfenning F (2007) Using constrained intuitionistic linear logic for hybrid robotic planning problems Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, pp 3705–3710

    Google Scholar 

  55. Silva F, Castilho MA, Künzle LA (2000) Petriplan: a new algorithm for plan generation Advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, pp 86–95

  56. Smith DE (2003) Choosing objectives in over-subscription planning Proceedings of the international conference on automated planning and scheduling

    Google Scholar 

  57. Torralba A, Alcazar V, Borrajo D, Kissmann P, Edelkamp S (2014) Symba: a symbolic bidirectional a planner Eighth international planning competition (IPC 2014), deterministic part, pp 105–108

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tzouvaras A (1998) The linear logic of multisets. Log J IGPL 6(6):901–916

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Vidal V, Geffner H (2006) Branching and pruning: an optimal temporal POCL planner based on constraint programming. Artif Intell 170(3):298–335

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported TUBITAK projects 109E032 and 114E277. We thank Prof. Frank Pfenning for his insights and guidance as well as Prof. Ozan Kahramanoğulları for his feedback on our work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey

    Sıtar Kortik

  2. Department of Computer Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

    Uluc̣ Saranli

Authors
  1. Sıtar Kortik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Uluc̣ Saranli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sıtar Kortik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kortik, S., Saranli, U. LinGraph: a graph-based automated planner for concurrent task planning based on linear logic. Appl Intell 47, 914–934 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-0936-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-0936-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation