Skip to main content
Log in

Tractable plan existence does not imply tractable plan generation

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a class, 3S, of planning instances such that the plan existence problem is tractable while plan generation is provably intractable for instances of this class. The class is defined by simple structural restrictions, all of them testable in polynomial‐time. Furthermore, we show that plan generation can be carried out in time bounded by a polynomial in the size of the input and the size of the generated solution. For this class, we propose a provably sound and complete incremental planner, i.e., a planner that can usually output an executable prefix of the final plan before it has generated the whole plan.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. J.A. Ambros-Ingerson and S. Steel, Integrating planning, execution and monitoring, in: Proc. 7th (US) National Conf. on Artif. Intell. (AAAI-88)(Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1988) pp. 83-88.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. Bäckström, Expressive equivalence of planning formalisms, Artif. Intell. 76(1-2) (1995) 17-34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. C. Bäckström and P. Jonsson, Planning with abstraction hierarchies can be exponentially less efficient, in: Proc. 14th Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI-95)(Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1995) pp. 1599-1604.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C. Bäckström and B. Nebel, Complexity results for SAS+ planning, Comput. Intell. 11(4) (1995) 625-655.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. Bylander, The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning, Artif. Intell. 69 (1994) 165-204.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. D. Chapman, Planning for conjunctive goals, Artif. Intell. 32 (1987) 333-377.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. M. Drummond, K. Swanson, J. Bresina and R. Levinson, Reaction-first search, in: Proc. 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artif. Intell. (IJCAI-93)(Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1993) pp. 1408-1413.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Garey and D. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness(Freeman, New York, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  9. R.A. Jarvis, On the identification of the convex hull of a finite set of points in the plane, Inf. Process. Lett. 2 (1973) 18-21.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. P. Jonsson and C. Bäckström, Tractable planning with state variables by exploiting structural restrictions, in: Proc. 12th (US) National Conf. on Artif. Intell. (AAAI-94)(Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1994) pp. 998-1003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P. Jonsson and C. Bäckström, Incremental planning, in: New Directions in AI Planning: Proc. 3rd Eur. WS. Planning (EWSP'95)(IOS Press, 1995) pp. 79-90.

  12. C.A. Knoblock, Automatically generating abstractions for planning, Artif. Intell. 68 (1994) 243-302.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonsson, P., Bäckström, C. Tractable plan existence does not imply tractable plan generation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 22, 281–296 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018995620232

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018995620232

Keywords

Navigation