Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:59:02.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reasoning and planning with sensing actions, incomplete information, and static causal laws using answer set programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2007

PHAN HUY TU ,
TRAN CAO SON  and
CHITTA BARAL
PHAN HUY TU
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, PO Box 30001, MSC CS, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA (e-mail: tphan@cs.nmsu.edu, tson@cs.nmsu.edu)
TRAN CAO SON
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, PO Box 30001, MSC CS, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA (e-mail: tphan@cs.nmsu.edu, tson@cs.nmsu.edu)
CHITTA BARAL
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA (e-mail: chitta@asu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We extend the 0-approximation of sensing actions and incomplete information in Son and Baral (2001) to action theories with static causal laws and prove its soundness with respect to the possible world semantics. We also show that the conditional planning problem with respect to this approximation is NP-complete. We then present an answer set programming based conditional planner, called ASCP, that is capable of generating both conformant plans and conditional plans in the presence of sensing actions, incomplete information about the initial state, and static causal laws. We prove the correctness of our implementation and argue that our planner is sound and complete with respect to the proposed approximation. Finally, we present experimental results comparing ASCP to other planners.

Keywords

Reasoning about actions and changessensing actionsincomplete informationconformant planningconditional planninganswer set programming
Type
Regular Papers
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , July 2007 , pp. 377 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, C., Smith, D., and Weld, D. 1998. Conditional effects in Graphplan. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS'98). AAAI Press, 44–53.Google Scholar
Anger, C., Konczak, K., and Linke, T. 2002. Non-monotonic reasoning with logic programs. In Proceedings of the 8th European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Intelligence 2002, LNAI 2424. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Baral, C. 2003. Knowledge Representation, reasoning, and declarative problem solving with Answer sets. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, C., Kreinovich, V., and Trejo, R. 2000a. Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in the presence of incompleteness. Artificial Intelligence 122, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baral, C., McIlraith, S., and Son, T. 2000b. Formulating diagnostic problem solving using an action language with narratives and sensing. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge and Representation and Reasoning (KR'2000). 311–322.Google Scholar
Bertoli, P., Cimatti, A., and Roveri, M. 2001. Heuristic search + symbolic model checking = efficient conformant planning. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 467–472.Google Scholar
Blum, A. and Furst, M. 95. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1636–1642.Google Scholar
Bonet, B. and Geffner, H. 2000. Planning with incomplete information as heuristic search in belief space. In Proceedings 6th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling, Chien, S., Kambhampati, S., and Knoblock, C., Eds. AAAI Press, 52–61.Google Scholar
Brafman, R. and Hoffmann, J. 2004. Conformant planning via heuristic forward search: A new approach. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-04), Koenig, S., Zilberstein, S., and Koehler, J., Eds. Morgan Kaufmann, Whistler, Canada, 355–364.Google Scholar
Bryce, D., Kambhampati, S., and Smith, D. 2004. Planning Graph Heuristics for Belief Space Search. Tech. rep., Arizona State University, Computer Science and Engineering. http://www.public.asu.edu/~danbryce/papers/.Google Scholar
Castellini, C., Giunchiglia, E., and Tacchella, A. 2003. Sat-based planning in complex domains: concurrency, constraints and nondeterminism. Artificial Intelligence 147, 1-2 (July), 85–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cimatti, A. and Roveri, M. 1999. Conformant planning via model checking. In European Conference on Planning. Springer Verlag, LNAI 1809, 21–34.Google Scholar
Cimatti, A. and Roveri, M. 2000. Conformant Planning via Symbolic Model Checking. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 13, 305–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cimatti, A., Roveri, M., and Bertoli, P. 2004. Conformant Planning via Symbolic Model Checking and Heuristic Search. Artificial Intelligence Journal 159, 127–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrigno, S., Eiter, T., Faber, W., Gottlob, G.Koch, C., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., and Scarcello, F. 1997. The dlv system: Model generator and application frontends. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Logic Programming. 128–137.Google Scholar
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., and Koehler, J. 1997. Encoding planning problems in non-monotonic logic programs. In Recent Advances in AI Planning, 4th European Conference on Planning, ECP'97, Toulouse, France, September 24-26, 1997, Proceedings. Springer, 169–181.Google Scholar
Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2003. A Logic Programming Approach to Knowledge State Planning, II: The System. Artificial Intelligence 144, 1-2, 157–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1988. The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Logic Programming: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conf. and Symp., Kowalski, R. and Bowen, K., Eds. 1070–1080.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1993. Representing actions and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17, 2,3,4, 301–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giunchiglia, E., Kartha, G., and Lifschitz, V. 1997. Representing action: indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence 95, 409–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, K. 1998. Leap Before You Look: Information Gathering in the PUCCINI planner. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling Systems. 70–77.Google Scholar
Golden, K., Etzioni, O., and Weld, D. 1996a. Planning with execution and incomplete informations. Tech. rep., Dept of Computer Science, University of Washington, TR96-01-09. February.Google Scholar
Golden, K. and Weld, D. 1996b. Representing sensing actions: The middle ground revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 174–185.Google Scholar
Hanks, S. and McDermott, D. 1987. Nonmonotonic Logic and Temporal Projection. Artificial Intelligence 33, 379–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, J. and Nebel, B. 2001. The FF Planning System: Fast Plan Generation Through Heuristic Search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 14, 253–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levesque, H. 1996. What is planning in the presence of sensing? In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 1139–1146.Google Scholar
Lierler, Y. and Maratea, M. 2004. Cmodels-2: SAT-based Answer Set Solver Enhanced to Non-tight Programs. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and NonMonotonic Reasoning Conference (LPNMR'04), Lifschitz, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. Vol. 2923 Springer Verlag, LNCS 2923, 346–350.Google Scholar
Lin, F. and Zhao, Y. 2002. ASSAT: Computing answer sets of a logic program by sat solvers. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'02). AAAI Press. 112–117.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 1999. Answer set planning. In Proceedings of the 1999 international conference on Logic programming. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 23–37.Google Scholar
Lifschitz, V. 2002. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence 138, 1–2, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lifschitz, V. and Turner, H. 1994. Splitting a logic program. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conf. on Logic Programming, Hentenryck, P. Van, Ed. 23–38.Google Scholar
Lobo, J. 1998. COPLAS: a COnditional PLAnner with Sensing actions. Tech. Rep. FS-98-02, AAAI.Google Scholar
Lobo, J., Taylor, S., and Mendez, G. 1997. Adding knowledge to the action description language . In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'97), AAAI Press. 454–459.Google Scholar
Marek, V. and Truszczyński, M. 1999. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-year Perspective. 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCain, N. and Turner, H. 1995. A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1978–1984.Google Scholar
McDermott, D. 1987. A critique of pure reason. Computational Intelligence 3, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. 1985. A formal theory of knowledge and action. In Formal theories of the commonsense world, Hobbs, J. and Moore, R., Eds. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
Niemelä, I. 1999. Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3,4, 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peot, M. and Smith, D. 1992. Conditional nonlinear planning. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on AI Planning Systems, Hendler, J., Ed. Morgan Kaufmann, College Park, Maryland, 189–197.Google Scholar
Pryor, L. and Collins, G. 1996. Planning for contingencies: A decision-based approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 4, 287–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rintanen, J. 2000. Constructing conditional plans by a theorem prover. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 10, 323–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherl, R. and Levesque, H. 2003. Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P., Niemelä, N., and Soininen, T. 2002. Extending and Implementing the Stable Model Semantics.Artificial Intelligence 138, 1–2, 181–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, D. E. and Weld, D. S. 1998. Conformant Graphplan. In Proceedings of the fifteenth national/tenth conference on Artificial intelligence (AAAI'98). AAAI Press, 889–896.Google Scholar
Son, T. and Baral, C. 2001. Formalizing sensing actions – a transition function based approach. Artificial Intelligence 125, 1–2 (January), 19–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, T., Baral, C., Nam, T., and McIlraith, S. 2005a. Domain-Dependent Knowledge in Answer Set Planning. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. To Appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, T., Tu, P., and Baral, C. 2004. Planning with Sensing Actions and Incomplete Information using Logic Programming. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Logic Programming and NonMonotonic Reasoning Conference (LPNMR'04), Lifschitz, V. and Niemelä, I., Eds. Vol. 2923 Springer Verlag, LNCS 2923, 261–274.Google Scholar
Son, T. C., Tu, P. H., Gelfond, M., and Morales, R. 2005b. Conformant Planning for Domains with Constraints – A New Approach. In Proceedings of the the Twentieth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1211–1216.Google Scholar
Thiebaux, S., Hoffmann, J., and Nebel, B. 2003. In Defense of PDDL Axioms. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Gottlob, G., Ed. Acapulco, Mexico, 961–966.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. 2000a. The Fluent Calculus: A Specification Language for Robots with Sensors in Nondeterministic, Concurrent, and Ramifying Environments. Tech. Rep. CL-2000-01, Computational Logic Group, Department of Computer Science, Dresden University of Technology. Oct.Google Scholar
Thielscher, M. 2000b. Representing the knowledge of a robot. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge and Representation and Reasoning (KR'2000). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 109–120.Google Scholar
Weld, D., Anderson, C., and Smith, D. 1998. Extending Graphplan to handle uncertainty and sensing actions. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI'98). AAAI Press, 897–904.Google Scholar