Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Planning as Propositional CSP: From Walksat to Local Search Techniques for Action Graphs

  • Published:
Constraints Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Graphplan-style of planning can be formulated as an incremental propositional CSP where the (boolean) variables correspond to operator instantiations (actions) that are or are not scheduled at certain time steps. In this paper we present a framework for solving this class of propositional CSPs using local search in planning graphs. The search space consists of particular subgraphs of a planning graph corresponding to (complete) variable assignments, and representing partial plans. The operators for moving from one search state to the next one are graph modifications corresponding to revisions of the current variable assignment (partial plan), or to an extension of the represented CSP.

Our techniques are implemented in a planner called LPG using various types of heuristics based on a parametrized objective function, where the parameters weight different constraint violations, and are dynamically evaluated using Lagrange multipliers. LPG's basic heuristic was inspired by Walksat, which in Kautz and Selman's Blackbox can be used to solve the SAT-encoding of a planning graph. An advantage of LPG is that its heuristics exploit the structure of the planning graph, while Blackbox relies on general heuristics for SAT-problems, and requires the translation of the planning graph into propositional clauses. Another major difference is that LPG can handle action execution costs to produce good quality plans. This is achieved by an “anytime” process minimizing an objective function based on the number of constraint violations in a plan and on its overall cost. Experimental results illustrate the efficiency of our approach, showing, in particular, that LPG is significantly faster than Blackbox and other planners based on planning graphs.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aarts, E., & Lenstra, J. (1997). Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

  2. Ambite, J., & Knoblock, C. (2001). Planning by rewriting. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 15: 207–261.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, C., Smith, D., & Weld, D. (1998). Conditional effects in graphplan. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS-98), pages 44–53.

  4. Blum, A., & Furst, M. (1997). Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 90: 281–300.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cayrol, M., Régnier, P., & Vidal, V. (2001). Least commitment in Graphplan. Artificial Intelligence, 130: 85–118.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chien, S., Knight, R., & Rabideau, G. (2001). An empirical evaluation of the effectiveness of local search for replanning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2148: 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dimopoulos, Y. (2002). Improved integer programming models and heuristic search for AI planning. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Planning (ECP-01). Springer Verlag.

  8. Dimopoulos, Y., & Gerevini, A. (2002). Temporal planning through mixed integer programming: a preliminary report. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-02).

  9. Do, M., & Kambhampati, S. (2001). Planning as constraint satisfaction: solving the planning graph by compiling it into CSP. Artificial Intelligence, 132(2): 151–182.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fox, M., & Long, D. (1998). Efficient implementation of the plan graph in STAN. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 10: 87–115.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fox, M., & Long, D. (1999). The detection and exploitation of symmetry in planning problems. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), pages 956–961.

  12. Gerevini, A., & Serina, I. (1999). Fast planning through greedy action graphs. In Proceedings of the 16th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), pages 503–510. AAAI Press / MIT Press.

  13. Gerevini, A., & Serina, I. (2000). Fast plan adaptation through planning graphs: local and systematic search techniques. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS-00), pages 112–121. AAAI Press / MIT Press.

  14. Gerevini, A., & Serina, I. (2001). Lagrange multipliers for local search on planning graphs. In Proceedings of the ECAI-2000 Workshop on Local Search for Planning and Scheduling, pages 37–54. Springer-Verlag 2148.

  15. Gerevini, A., & Serina, I. (2002). LPG: a planner based on local search for planning graphs with action costs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS-02), pages 281–290. AAAI Press / MIT Press.

  16. Giunchiglia, E., Massarotto, A., & Sebastiani, R. (1998). Act, and the rest will follow: exploiting determinism in planning as satisfiability. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), pages 948–953. AAAI Press.

  17. Hamiez, J., & Hao, J. (2001). Solving the sports league scheduling problem with tabu search. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2148: 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hoffmann, J., & Nebel, B. (2001). The FF planning system: fast plan generation through heuristic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 14: 253–302.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoos, H. H., & Stützle. (2000). Local search algorithms for SAT: an empirical evaluation. Journal of Automated Reasoning (JAR), 24: 421–481.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kambhampati, S. (2000). Planning graph as (dynamic) CSP: exploiting EBL, DDB and other CSP techniques in graphplan. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 12: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kautz, H., McAllester, D., & Selman, B. (1996). Encoding plans in propositional logic. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96), pages 374–384. Boston, MA.

  22. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1996). Pushing the envelope: planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Shrobe, H., & Senator, T., eds., Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), pages 1194–1201. AAAI Press.

  23. Kautz, H., & Selman, B. (1999). Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), pages 318–325.

  24. Koehler, J., Nebel, B., Hoffmann, J., & Dimopoulos, Y. (1997). Extending planning graphs to an ADL subset. In Fourth European Conference on Planning (ECP'97), pages 273–285. Springer Verlag.

  25. Li, C. M., & Anbulagan. (1997). Heuristics based on unit propagation for satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), pages 366–371.

  26. Minton, S., Johonson, M., Philips, A., & Laird, P. (1992). Minimizing conflicts: a heuristic repair method for constraint satisfaction and scheduling problems. Artificial Intelligence, 58: 161–205.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mittal, S., & Falkenhainer, B. (1990). Dynamic constraint satisfaction problems. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pages 25–32. Boston, MA.

  28. Moskewicz, M., Madigan, C., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., & Malik, S. (2001). Chaff: engineering an efficient sat solver. In 39th Design Automation Conference, pages 530–535.

  29. Nareyek, A. (2001a). Beyond the plan-length criterion. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2148, pages 55–78. Springer-Verlag.

  30. Nareyek, A. (2001b). Constraint-Based Agents — An Architecture for Constraint-Based Modeling and Local-Search-Based Reasoning for Planning and Scheduling in Open and Dynamic Worlds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2062. Springer-Verlag.

  31. Nguyen, X., Kambhampati, S., & Nigenda, R. (2002). Planning graph as the basis for deriving heuristics for plan synthesis by state space and CSP search. Artificial Intelligence, 135(1-2): 73–123.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Papadimitriou, C. H., & Steiglitz, K. (1982). Combinatorial Optimization: Algorithms and Complexity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pérez, M. A. (1996). Representing and learning quality-improving search control knowledge. In In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 382–390.

  34. Selman, B., Kautz, H., & Cohen, B. (1994). Noise strategies for improving local search. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-94), pages 337–343. Seattle, WA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shang, Y., & Wah, B. (1998). A discrete lagrangian-based global-search method for solving satisfiability problems. Journal of Global Optimization, 12(1): 61–99.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smith, D., & Weld, D. (1999). Temporal planning with mutual exclusion reasoning. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), pages 326–337.

  37. Tara, A. E., & Raymond, J. M. (1997). Learning to improve both efficiency and quality of planning. In Pollack, M., ed., Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), pages 1227–1232. Morgan Kaufmann.

  38. Vaessens, R., Aarts, E., & Lenstra, J. K. (1996). Job shop scheduling by local search. Journal on Computing Informs, 8(3): 302–317.

    Google Scholar 

  39. van Beek, P., & Chen, X. (1999). CPlan: a constraint programming approach to planning. In Proceedings of the 16th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), pages 585–590.

  40. Wah, B. W., & Wu, Z. (1999). The theory of discrete lagrange multipliers for non-linear discrete optimization. In Proc. of Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP-99), pages 28–42. Springer-Verlag.

  41. Weld, D. (1999). Recent advances in AI planning. AI Magazine, 20(2): 93–123.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Wolfman, S., & Weld, D. (1999). The LPSAT engine its application to resource planning. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-99), pages 310–317.

  43. Wu, Z., & Wah, B. (2000). An efficient global-search strategy in discrete lagrangian methods for solving hard satisfiability problems. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00), pages 310–315. AAAI Press / MIT Press.

  44. Zweben, M. S., Daun, B., & Deale, M. (1994). Scheduling and rescheduling with iterative repair. In Zweben, and Fox, eds., Intelligent Scheduling, pages 241–255. Morgan Kaufmann.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DEA – Università degli Studi di Brescia, via Branze 38, I-25123, Brescia, Italy

    Alfonso Gerevini & Ivan Serina

Authors
  1. Alfonso Gerevini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivan Serina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerevini, A., Serina, I. Planning as Propositional CSP: From Walksat to Local Search Techniques for Action Graphs. Constraints 8, 389–413 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025846120461

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025846120461

Search

Navigation