Planning: Part 3 Planning Graphs COMP151 April 4, 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UNIT-3 PLANNING AI Planning Prepared by N. Sathish Kumar AP
Advertisements

Causal-link Planning II José Luis Ambite. 2 CS 541 Causal Link Planning II Planning as Search State SpacePlan Space AlgorithmProgression, Regression POP.
Constraint Based Reasoning over Mutex Relations in Graphplan Algorithm Pavel Surynek Charles University, Prague Czech Republic.
Planning Module THREE: Planning, Production Systems,Expert Systems, Uncertainty Dr M M Awais.
Planning Chapter 11 Yet another popular formulation for AI – Logic-based language – One of the most structured formulations Can be translate into less.
CLASSICAL PLANNING What is planning ?  Planning is an AI approach to control  It is deliberation about actions  Key ideas  We have a model of the.
MBD and CSP Meir Kalech Partially based on slides of Jia You and Brian Williams.
Finding Search Heuristics Henry Kautz. if State[node] is not in closed OR g[node] < g[LookUp(State[node],closed)] then A* Graph Search for Any Admissible.
1 Graphplan José Luis Ambite * [* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Graph-based Planning Brian C. Williams Sept. 25 th & 30 th, J/6.834J.
Planning Graphs * Based on slides by Alan Fern, Berthe Choueiry and Sungwook Yoon.
For Monday Finish chapter 12 Homework: –Chapter 13, exercises 8 and 15.
Planning and Scheduling. 2 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE Some background Many planning problems have a time-dependent component –  actions happen.
Planning CSE 473 Chapters 10.3 and 11. © D. Weld, D. Fox 2 Planning Given a logical description of the initial situation, a logical description of the.
Lecture 4 Planning. Lecture Plan 1. Planning: I. PDDL II. Partial Order Planning III. Planning Graphs and the Graph Plan Algorithm.
EXAMPLE OF PARTIAL ORDER PLANNING. Action Recipes: Action: Stack(x,y) Prec: Clear(x) ^ Clear(y) ^ OnTable(x) Effect: ~Clear(y) ^ ~OnTable(x) ^ On(x,y)
Fast Planning through Planning Graph Analysis By Jan Weber Jörg Mennicke.
AI – Week AI Planning – Plan Generation Algorithms: GraphPlan Lee McCluskey, room 2/09
CPSC 322, Lecture 18Slide 1 Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning Computer Science cpsc322, Lecture 18 (Textbook Chpt 8) February, 12, 2010.
Planning Copyright, 1996 © Dale Carnegie & Associates, Inc. Chapter 11.
Planning: Part 2 Partial Order Planning COMP151 April 2, 2007.
Planning II CSE 473. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Tournament! PS3 – later today Non programming exercises Programming component: (mini project) SPAM detection.
1 Planning Chapters 11 and 12 Thanks: Professor Dan Weld, University of Washington.
Planning II CSE 573. © Daniel S. Weld 2 Logistics Reading for Wed Ch 18 thru 18.3 Office Hours No Office Hour Today.
Classical Planning Chapter 10.
GraphPlan Alan Fern * * Based in part on slides by Daniel Weld and José Luis Ambite.
For Wednesday Read chapter 12, sections 3-5 Program 2 progress due.
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Dana Nau: Lecture slides for Automated Planning Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License:
Feng Zhiyong Tianjin University Fall planning.
CISC453 Winter 2010 Classical Planning AIMA3e Ch 10.
Artificial Intelligence 1: Planning
Jonathon Doran. The Planning Domain A domain describes the objects, facts, and actions in the universe. We may have a box and a table in our universe.
1 CSC 8520 Spring Paula MatuszekBased on
Planning Chapter Planning The Planning problem Planning with State-space search Partial-order planning Planning graphs Planning with propositional.
Homework 1 ( Written Portion )  Max : 75  Min : 38  Avg : 57.6  Median : 58 (77%)
CSE 473 Automated Planning Dan Weld (With slides by UW AI faculty & Dana Nau I have a plan - a plan that cannot possibly fail. - Inspector Clousseau.
Midterm Review Prateek Tandon, John Dickerson. Basic Uninformed Search (Summary) b = branching factor d = depth of shallowest goal state m = depth of.
For Monday Read chapter 12, sections 1-2 Homework: –Chapter 10, exercise 3.
CPS 270: Artificial Intelligence Planning Instructor: Vincent Conitzer.
Classical Planning Chapter 10 Mausam / Andrey Kolobov (Based on slides of Dan Weld, Marie desJardins)
Notes 9: Planning; Strips Planning Systems ICS 270a Spring 2003.
Graphplan.
© Daniel S. Weld 1 Logistics Travel Wed class led by Mausam Week’s reading R&N ch17 Project meetings.
Graphplan: Fast Planning through Planning Graph Analysis Avrim Blum Merrick Furst Carnegie Mellon University.
Automated Planning and Decision Making Prof. Ronen Brafman Automated Planning and Decision Making Graphplan Based on slides by: Ambite, Blyth and.
Graphplan CSE 574 April 4, 2003 Dan Weld. Schedule BASICS Intro Graphplan SATplan State-space Refinement SPEEDUP EBL & DDB Heuristic Gen TEMPORAL Partial-O.
Introduction to Artificial Intelligence April 11, 2012 Planning 1 Introduction to Artificial Intelligence CSCE476/876, Spring 2012:
Heuristic Search Planners. 2 USC INFORMATION SCIENCES INSTITUTE Planning as heuristic search Use standard search techniques, e.g. A*, best-first, hill-climbing.
1 Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques. 2 Motivation A big source of inefficiency in search algorithms is the branching factor  the number of children.
EA C461 – Artificial Intelligence Planning
Planning AIMA: 10.1, 10.2, Follow slides and use textbook as reference
Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning
Planning: Heuristics and CSP Planning
Class #17 – Thursday, October 27
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Artificial Intelligence: Planning
Planning Problems On(C, A)‏ On(A, Table)‏ On(B, Table)‏ Clear(C)‏
Dave Touretzky Read R&N Chapter 10
AI Planning Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Class #19 – Monday, November 3
Chapter 6 Planning-Graph Techniques
Supplemental slides for CSE 327 Prof. Jeff Heflin
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
Graphplan/ SATPlan Chapter
GraphPlan Jim Blythe.
An Introduction to Planning Graph
Graph-based Planning Slides based on material from: Prof. Maria Fox
[* based in part on slides by Jim Blythe and Dan Weld]
Presentation transcript:

Planning: Part 3 Planning Graphs COMP151 April 4, 2007

Planning Graphs Planning graphs are an efficient way to create a representation of a planning problem that can be used to –Achieve better heuristic estimates –Directly construct plans Planning graphs only work for propositional problems.

Planning Graphs Planning graphs consists of a seq of levels that correspond to time steps in the plan. –Level 0 is the initial state. –Each level consists of a set of literals and a set of actions that represent what might be possible at that step in the plan –Might be is the key to efficiency –Records only a restricted subset of possible negative interactions among actions.

Planning Graphs Each level consists of Literals = all those that could be true at that time step, depending upon the actions executed at preceding time steps. Actions = all those actions that could have their preconditions satisfied at that time step, depending on which of the literals actually hold.

PG Example Init(Have(Cake)) Goal(Have(Cake)  Eaten(Cake)) Action(Eat(Cake), PRECOND: Have(Cake) EFFECT: ¬Have(Cake)  Eaten(Cake)) Action(Bake(Cake), PRECOND: ¬ Have(Cake) EFFECT: Have(Cake))

PG Example Create level 0 from initial problem state.

PG Example Add all applicable actions. Add all effects to the next state.

PG Example Add persistence actions (inaction = no-ops) to map all literals in state S i to state S i+1.

PG Example Identify mutual exclusions between actions and literals based on potential conflicts.

Mutual exclusion A mutex relation holds between two actions when: –Inconsistent effects: one action negates the effect of another. –Interference: one of the effects of one action is the negation of a precondition of the other. –Competing needs: one of the preconditions of one action is mutually exclusive with the precondition of the other. A mutex relation holds between two literals when: –one is the negation of the other OR –each possible action pair that could achieve the literals is mutex (inconsistent support).

Cake example Level S 1 contains all literals that could result from picking any subset of actions in A 0 –Conflicts between literals that can not occur together (as a consequence of the selection action) are represented by mutex links. –S1 defines multiple states and the mutex links are the constraints that define this set of states.

Cake example Repeat process until graph levels off: –two consecutive levels are identical, or –contain the same amount of literals (explanation follows later)

PG and Heuristic Estimation PG’s provide information about the problem –PG is a relaxed problem. –A literal that does not appear in the final level of the graph cannot be achieved by any plan. H(n) = ∞ –Level Cost: First level in which a goal appears Very low estimate, since several actions can occur Improvement: restrict to one action per level using serial PG (add mutex links between every pair of actions, except persistence actions).

PG and Heuristic Estimation Cost of a conjunction of goals –Max-level: maximum first level of any of the goals –Sum-level: sum of first levels of all the goals –Set-level: First level in which all goals appear without being mutex

The GRAPHPLAN Algorithm Extract a solution directly from the PG function GRAPHPLAN(problem) return solution or failure graph  INITIAL-PLANNING-GRAPH(problem) goals  GOALS[problem] loop do if goals all non-mutex in last level of graph then do solution  EXTRACT-SOLUTION(graph, goals, LENGTH(graph)) if solution  failure then return solution else if NO-SOLUTION-POSSIBLE(graph) then return failure graph  EXPAND-GRAPH(graph, problem)

GRAPHPLAN example Initially the plan consist of 5 literals from the initial state and the CWA literals (S0). Add actions whose preconditions are satisfied by EXPAND-GRAPH (A0) Also add persistence actions and mutex relations. Add the effects at level S1 Repeat until goal is in level Si

GRAPHPLAN example EXPAND-GRAPH also looks for mutex relations –Inconsistent effects E.g. Remove(Spare, Trunk) and LeaveOverNight due to At(Spare,Ground) and not At(Spare, Ground) –Interference E.g. Remove(Flat, Axle) and LeaveOverNight At(Flat, Axle) as PRECOND and not At(Flat,Axle) as EFFECT –Competing needs E.g. PutOn(Spare,Axle) and Remove(Flat, Axle) due to At(Flat.Axle) and not At(Flat, Axle) –Inconsistent support E.g. in S2, At(Spare,Axle) and At(Flat,Axle)

GRAPHPLAN example In S2, the goal literals exist and are not mutex with any other –Solution might exist and EXTRACT-SOLUTION will try to find it EXTRACT-SOLUTION can use Boolean CSP to solve the problem or a search process: –Initial state = last level of PG and goal goals of planning problem –Actions = select any set of non-conflicting actions that cover the goals in the state –Goal = reach level S0 such that all goals are satisfied –Cost = 1 for each action.

GRAPHPLAN Termination Termination? YES PG are monotonically increasing or decreasing: –Literals increase monotonically –Actions increase monotonically –Mutexes decrease monotonically Because of these properties and because there is a finite number of actions and literals, every PG will eventually level off