1 / 12

The goals are :

The goals are : . to show there is an isomorphism between partial order planning and abductive reasoning in the event calculus (as an extention to Shanahan’s work) to show how an abductive planner can implement sistematic and redundant planning methods

dorcas
Download Presentation

The goals are :

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The goals are : • to show there is an isomorphism between partial order planning and abductive reasoning in the event calculus (as an extention to Shanahan’s work) • to show how an abductive planner can implement sistematic and redundant planning methods • to provide a formal specification of sistematicity and redundancy in planning • to show the efficiency of abductive planning in terms of domain characteristics and the implemented planning method (as in tradicional AI planning)

  2. Abductive planning : domain specification (initiates, terminates and releases)  : initial state (initiallynandinitiallyp)  : goal state (holdsAt) EC : conjunction of Event Calculus axioms abductive planning has to find a set of facts  (happens and before) such that: (a) CIRC[; initiates, terminates, releases]  CIRC[; happens] EC is consistent (b) CIRC[; initiates, terminates, releases]  CIRC[; happens] EC | 

  3. Abductive EC planner abp([holds_at(F1,T3)|Gs1],R1,R5,N1,N4) :- abresolve(initiates(A,F1,T1),R1,Gs2,R1), abresolve(happens(A,T1,T2),R1,[],R2), abresolve(before(T2,T3),R2,[],R3), add_neg([clipped(T1,F1,T3)],N1,N2), nafs(N2,R3,R4,N2,N3), append(Gs2,Gs1,Gs3), abp(Gs3,R4,R5,N3,N4). EC axiom holdsAt(F,T)  happens(A,T1,T2)  initiates(A,F,T1) (T2T ) clipped(T1,F,T)

  4. Domain specification S0 initiallyp( clear(c) ) initiallyp( on(c,a) ) ... initiates(move(X,Y,Z), clear(Y), T)  holdsAt( clear(X), T) holdsAt( clear(Z), T) holdsAt( on(X,Y), T) XZ... terminates(move(X,Y,Z), clear(Z), T)  holdsAt( clear(X), T) holdsAt( clear(Z), T) holdsAt( on(X,Y), T)  XZ... C A B

  5. Implemented systems Classical planners : POP, SNLP e TWEAK Abductive planners: ABP, SABP e RABP Implementation constraints (as much as possible): • same data structures and computacional resources • same access time to the action representation (domain model); • simplified version of the EC: only the classical planning assumptions are specified

  6. Goal protection policies in 3 planning methods POP/ABP • protects already established goals only from negative threats • refines only consistent plans SNLP/ SABP (systematic planning) • protects established goals from negative or positive threats • refines only consistent plans • never visits the same plan more than once TWEAK/RABP (redundant planning) • protects established goals form only part of negative threats • refines consistent and inconsistent plans • can visit the same plan several times

  7. Experiment I: POP ABP Goal: • to show the isomorphism between partial order planning and abductive reasoning in the event calculus Test domains (Barret & Weld): • independent goals: D0S1 • serializable goals: D1S1 e DmS1 • non-serializable goals: DmS2 Statistics: • search space size • average CPU-time

  8. 16 14 10 12 8 6 4 10 30 50 20 40 Same problem solving methods: search space sizes are equal 12 18 POP POP D1S1 D0S1 ABP 10 ABP 8 nodes/plans processed nodes/plans processed 6 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 60 25 POP DmS2 DmS1 20 POP ABP ABP 15 nodes/plans processed nodes/plans processed 10 5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 number of subgoals number of subgoals

  9. Same problem solving methods: the planners visit the same partial plans plan([step(42, unstack(c,a)), step(40, stack(b,c)), step(18, stack(a,b))], [42<40, ...], [link(i,on(c,a),42), ...]) residue([happens(unstack(c,a), 42), happens(stack(b,c), 40), happens(stack(a,b), 18)], [before(42,40), ...], [clipped(0,on(c,a),42), ...])

  10. 0.09 0.01 0.02 3.0 2.0 4.5 4.0 2.5 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.14 0.12 3.5 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 Planning efficiency 0.09 0.08 POP D1S1 D0S1 POP 0.07 ABP 0.06 ABP 0.05 CPU-time (sec) CPU-time (sec) 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 POP DmS1 DmS2 POP ABP ABP CPU-time (sec) CPU-time (sec) 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 number of subgoals number of subgoals

  11. Experiment II Goal: • to show that different implementations of abductive planning can have the same behavior as the tradicional AI planning algorithms have Sistems to compare: • POP  ABP • SNLP  SABP • TWEAK  RABP Test domains (based on Knoblock & Yang): • variable difficulty: AxDyS2 Statistics: • search space size • CPU-time

  12. Systematicity vs. Redundancy Abductive planners presented the same behavior as the respective planning algorithms

More Related