DD2380 Artificial Intelligence

Classical AI Planning

Jana Tumova

Planning 1
 Planning

Deliberating a plan of action to achieve one’s goal

Planning 2
 Planning

Deliberating a plan of action to achieve one’s goal

Planning 3
 Real-world planning

• Limited resources: time, cost, capacity,. . .

• Uncertainty
• Multiple agents
• Different criteria: optimality,. . .
• Robotics: dynamical constraints
• Integration into context, integration with other AI methods

Planning 4
 Real-world planning

• Limited resources: time, cost, capacity,. . .

• Uncertainty
• Multiple agents
• Different criteria: optimality,. . .
• Robotics: dynamical constraints
• Integration into context, integration with other AI methods
Today’s lecture: only fully observable, deterministic, static,
environments.

Planning 4
 Planning problem

Planning problem:
• Initial state
• Actions available in a state ACTIONS(s)
• Results of applying action RESULT (s, a)
• Goal test

Planning 5
 Planning vs. problem solving

• Problem solving (search and games):

• Explicit atomic representations
• Need good domain-specific heuristics
• Classical planning:
• Factored representation
• Domain-independent algorithms

Planning 6
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• How do we solve a planning problem?

Planning 7
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• PDDL, STRIPS, ...
• How do we solve a planning problem?

Planning 7
 Planning Domain Definition Language
(PDDL)

A careful balance between expressivity and simplicity

States
• At(P, SFO)
• At(P, Arlanda) ∧ Plane(P) ∧ Loaded(Cargo, P)
Actions (think of them as universally quantified)

Planning 8
 PDDL States

• State is a conjunction of ground, functionless atomic fluents

At(P, Arlanda) ∧ Plane(P) ∧ Loaded(Cargo, P)
• Database semantics: Fluents that are not mentionad are false
• Two equivalent viewpoints:
• Conjunction of fluents: logical inference
• Set of fluents: set operations

Planning 9
 PDDL Action Schemes
Actions and their results are represented through action schemes
• Action name with the list of all used variables
• Precondition: a conjunction of literals saying when an action is
applicable in a state s, namely if s entails the precondition

ACTIONS(s) = {a | s |= PRECOND(a)}.

• Effect: a conjunction of literals representing the literals that need to

be removed and added

RESULT (s, a) = (s \ DEL(a)) ∪ ADD(a),

where DEL(a) are the fluents that appear as negative literals in the
effect and ADD(a) are the fluents that appear as positive ones.

Planning 10
 Block World in PDDL

Planning 11
 Block World in PDDL

Planning 11
 Block World in PDDL

Planning 12
 Q: What are the initial state and the goal
test?

Action(Slide(t, s1 , s2 ))
PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
EFFECT : On(t, s2 ) ∧ Blank(s1 ) ∧ ¬On(t, s1 ) ∧ ¬Blank(s2 )

Planning 13
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• PDDL, STRIPS, ...
• How do we solve a planning problem?

Planning 14
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• PDDL, STRIPS, ...
• How do we solve a planning problem?
• Via forward search and backward search with heuristics

Planning 14
 PDDL Planning Problem as a State Space
Search
• Description of a planning problem defines a search problem
• States are truth assignments to fluents, actions and results define
the transitions

Block(A) , Block(B), Block(C) Block(A), Block(B), Block(C),

On(A, Table), On(B,Table), On(C,A), On(A,Table), On(B,Table), On(C,Table)
Clear(B),Clear(C) Clear(A), Clear(B), Clear(C)

… …
Planning 15
 PDDL Planning Problem as a State Space
Search
• Description of a planning problem defines a search problem
• States are truth assignments to fluents, actions and results define
the transitions

On(A, Table), On(B,Table), On(C,A), On(A,Table), On(B,Table), On(C,Table)

Clear(B),Clear(C) Clear(A), Clear(B), Clear(C)

… …
Planning 16
 Forward (progression) search

• As expected
• Start at the initial state
• Explore applicable actions

• Properties
• Large branching factor, often explores irrelevant actions
• Needs a good heuristic, ideally domain-independent

Planning 17
 Example: Air Cargo Transport in PDDL

Planning 18
 Heuristics

In both progression and regression search, we need good a heuristic.

Planning 19
 Domain-independent heuristics

• Any planning problem instance

• Define a relaxed, easier problem and a heuristic as a solution
to this easier problem
• Use the internal structure of a factored representation of the
state space
• Ignore preconditions
• Ignore delete lists
• State abstraction
• Decomposition
• Planning graph

Planning 20
 Domain-independent heuristics

• Any planning problem instance

• Define a relaxed, easier problem and a heuristic as a solution
to this easier problem
• Use the internal structure of a factored representation of the
state space
• Ignore preconditions
• Ignore delete lists
• State abstraction
• Decomposition
• Planning graph

Planning 21
 Ignore preconditions

Ignore all preconditions

• Every action becomes applicable in every state
• The number of edges in the graph increases
• The number of steps to solve the relaxed problem is almost
the number of unsatisfied fluents in the goal
• Some actions may achieve multiple goals
• Some actions may undo the effects of others
Ignore some preconditions

Planning 22
 Example: Ignore preconditions

Action(Slide(t, s1 , s2 ))
PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
EFFECT : On(t, s2 ) ∧ Blank(s1 ) ∧ ¬On(t, s1 ) ∧ ¬Blank(s2 )

h1 (n): number of the misplaced tiles

Planning 23
 Example: Ignore preconditions

Action(Slide(t, s1 , s2 ))
PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
EFFECT : On(t, s2 ) ∧ Blank(s1 ) ∧ ¬On(t, s1 ) ∧ ¬Blank(s2 )

h1 (n): number of the misplaced tiles

• The relaxed problem assumed we can transfer any tile anywhere

• PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
Planning 23
 Q: Match ignoring preconditions with the
heuristic

Action(Slide(t, s1 , s2 ))
PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
EFFECT : On(t, s2 ) ∧ Blank(s1 ) ∧ ¬On(t, s1 ) ∧ ¬Blank(s2 )
h2 (n): sum of the distances of the tiles from the goal position

Planning 24
 Q: Match ignoring preconditions with the
heuristic

Action(Slide(t, s1 , s2 ))
PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
EFFECT : On(t, s2 ) ∧ Blank(s1 ) ∧ ¬On(t, s1 ) ∧ ¬Blank(s2 )
h2 (n): sum of the distances of the tiles from the goal position

• The relaxed problem assumed we can transfer any tile to an

adjacent cell
PRECOND : On(t, s1 ) ∧ Tile(t) ∧ Blank(s2 ) ∧ Adjacent(s1 , s2 )
Planning 24
 Domain-independent heuristics

• Any planning problem instance

• Define a relaxed, easier problem and a heuristic as a solution
to this easier problem
• Use the internal structure of a factored representation of the
state space
• Ignore preconditions
• Ignore delete lists
• State abstraction
• Decomposition
• Planning graph

Planning 25
 Ignore Delete Lists

• Remove all negative literals from effects

• No action will undo progress by another action towards the
goal
• The number of edges in the graph increases

Planning 26
 Domain-independent Heuristics

• Any planning problem instance

• Define a relaxed, easier problem and a heuristic as a solution
to this easier problem
• Use the internal structure of a factored representation of the
state space
• Ignore preconditions
• Ignore delete lists
• State abstraction
• Decomposition
• Planning graph

Planning 27
 State Abstraction

• Many-to-one mapping from states in the ground

representation to the abstract representation
• The number of states decreases
• Ignore some fluents

Planning 28
 Domain-independent Heuristics

• Any planning problem instance

• Define a relaxed, easier problem and a heuristic as a solution
to this easier problem
• Use the internal structure of a factored representation of the
state space
• Ignore preconditions
• Ignore delete lists
• State abstraction
• Decomposition
• Planning graph

Planning 29
 Decomposition

• G = G1 ∧ . . . ∧ Gn
• Instead of problem P, we solve problems P1 , . . . , Pn
• We can use maxi COST (Pi ) as a heuristic

Planning 30
 Decomposition

• G = G1 ∧ . . . ∧ Gn
• Instead of problem P, we solve problems P1 , . . . , Pn
• We can use maxi COST (Pi ) as a heuristic

• Q: Can we use COST (P1 ) + . . . + COST (Pn ) as a heuristic?

Planning 30
 Decomposition

• G = G1 ∧ . . . ∧ Gn
• Instead of problem P, we solve problems P1 , . . . , Pn
• We can use maxi COST (Pi ) as a heuristic

• Q: Can we use COST (P1 ) + . . . + COST (Pn ) as a heuristic?

• Q: What generally happens if we use a non-admissible

heuristic?

Planning 30
 Domain-independent Heuristics

• Any planning problem instance

• Define a relaxed, easier problem and a heuristic as a solution
to this easier problem
• Use the internal structure of a factored representation of the
state space
• Ignore preconditions
• Ignore delete lists
• State abstraction
• Decomposition
• Planning graph

Planning 31
 Planning Graph

Planning 32
 Planning Graph

State level Action level

Each fluent that Persistence

holds initially Mutex
actions

Planning 33
 Planning Graph

Mutex:
• Inconsistent effects: one
action negates the effect of
State level Action level
the other
• 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
Each fluent that Persistence
Mutex
the negation of a precondition
holds initially actions
of the other
Planning 34
 Planning Graph

State level Action level State level Mutex for literals:

• Negation
• If each possible pair of
actions that could
achieve the two literals
is mutually exclusive

Each fluent that Persistence

holds initially Mutex
actions

Planning 35
 Planning Graph

State level Action level State level Action level

Each fluent that Persistence

holds initially Mutex
actions

Planning 36
 Planning Graph

State level Action level State level Action level State level

Each fluent that Persistence Leveled off

holds initially Mutex
actions

Planning 37
 Planning Graph

• Directed graph with alternating state and action levels

• Roughly,
• Si level contains literals that could hold at time i
• Ai level contains actions that could have their precoditions
satisfied at time i.
• Persistence actions: a literal can persist if no action negates it
• Mutex:
• Inconsistent effects: one action negates effect of the other
• Interference: effect of one action negates a precondition of the
other
• Competing needs: the precondition of one action is mutually
exclusive with a precondition of the other

Planning 38
 Planning Graph Properties

• Polynomial in the size of the planning problem

• A literal never appears too late, but might appear too early
• If a goal literal does not appear in the final level of the graph,
the problem is unsolvable

• We can use it for designing an independent-domain heuristic:

• Max-level heuristic: admissible, but not always accurate
• Level-sum heuristic: generally inadmissible, but works well in
practice
• Set-level heuristic: find the level at which all the goal literals
appear without being mutually exclusive; admissible and works
well

Planning 39
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• PDDL, STRIPS, ...
• How do we solve a planning problem?
• Via forward search and backward search with heuristics

Planning 40
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• PDDL, STRIPS, ...
• How do we solve a planning problem?
• Via forward search and backward search with heuristics
• Via GRAPHPlan

Planning 40
 GRAPHPlan
• Using the planning graph to extract a plan directly instead of using
it to design a heuristic for search
• EXTRACT-SOLUTION either through CSP or through backward
search in the planning graph, not in the state space
• If EXTRACT-SOLUTION does not find a plan, we store
(level, goals) in nogoods

Planning 41
 GRAPHPlan

Planning 42
 GRAPHPlan Properties

• Literals increase monotonically

• Actions increase monotonically
• Mutexes decrease monotonically
• No-goods decrease monotonically

• It is not enough to level-off the graph

• Termination when mutexes and no-goods have both leveled off

Planning 43
 Challenges

• How do we represent a planning problem?

• PDDL, STRIPS, ...
• How do we solve a planning problem?
• Via forward search and backward search with heuristics
• Via GRAPHPlan
• As refinement of partially ordered plans
• As Boolean satisfiability
• As first-order logical deduction: situation calculus
• As constraint satisfaction

Planning 44
 Final remarks

Where to learn more

• Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach by Stuart J. Russell
and Peter Norvig, chapter 10 + the udacity course Intro to AI
• Automated Planning and Acting by Dana S. Nau, Malik
Ghallab, and Paolo Traverso

Planning 45