1 / 17

Cost-Optimal Symbolic Pattern Database Planning with State Trajectory and Preference Constraints

Cost-Optimal Symbolic Pattern Database Planning with State Trajectory and Preference Constraints. Stefan Edelkamp University of Dortmund. Motivation. Our BDD Planner MIPS compute Step-Optimal Propositional Plans

chaman
Télécharger la présentation

Cost-Optimal Symbolic Pattern Database Planning with State Trajectory and Preference Constraints

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. Cost-Optimal Symbolic Pattern Database Planning with State Trajectoryand Preference Constraints Stefan Edelkamp University of Dortmund

  2. Motivation Our BDD Planner MIPS compute Step-Optimal Propositional Plans How can it be extended to compute Cost-Optimal Plans for PDDL3 to take part in the 2006 International Planning Competition?

  3. Overview • BDD-based Planning • Forward, Backward Partitioned Images • Bidirectional Search • Symbolic Pattern Databases • Abstraction Databases • Genetic PDBs • Sequential PDDL3 Planning • Encoding Cost-Functions • Cost-Optimal Breadth-First Branch-And-Bound • Results, Conclusion, Future Work

  4. BDD-based Planning • Symbolic Representation of Planning State Sets • 1 Bit per Proposition Inefficient  Use Multivariate (SAS+) Encoding • Variable Ordering is important • Breadth-First Symbolic Search:Si(x) represents all states reachable in i steps • Symbolic Heuristic Search: Available through Boolean Representation of the Heuristic

  5. Images • T(x,x‘) encodes Transition Relation for • Image(x‘) = x States(x) T(x,x‘) • Pre-Image(x) = x States(x‘)  T(x,x‘)  Forward and Backward Search very much the same • Partition Computation: • 1 Transition Relation for each Planning Operator • ( and vcommute)  Disjunctive Partition

  6. Symbolic Bidirectional Search Intersection found Direction: • Time • BDD Size • State Set Size

  7. Pattern Databases Not used in Competition • Backward Search only executed in Abstract State Space • Abstraction (Set SAS+-variables to Don‘t Care/Smaller Ranges) • Precomputed Partition in BDDs H[0,…m], computed with Backward BFS • Guides Search in Concrete State Space • Pattern Selection Strategy: Bin-Packing • Faster and Smaller than Explicit-PDBs

  8. Genetic Pattern Databases Not used in Competition (MoChArt)  Problem of Greedy Bin Packing: • Selection Strategy influences Efficiency • Many Patterns to Choose From Proposal: Automate Pattern Selection Problem • Genetic Algorithm with Variable-Selection Vector Genes • Selection based on mean heuristic value as fitness (one PDB) • During learning PDBs are constructed but not used

  9. PDDL3 Sequential Plan Semantics

  10. Symbolic PDDL3 Planning • State Trajectory Constraints • PDDL3-to-PDDL2 Approach • Poster on Main Conference • Goal Constraints • Soft Constraints evaluated at Intersection States • BnB Pruning at Intersection States • Temporal Constraints • e.g. hold-after (t p):  i>t: Openi  Openi  p • Unidirectional Search (? Bidirectional ?)

  11. BDDs for Linear Expressions • Preference (preference pi Pi) • Introduce Boolean Variable bi for Pi, s.t. • Indicator Function: bi  Pi • MetricF(x) = a1*v1 + … an*vn • Compute minF,maxF • Encode Range [0,maxF-minF] • Construct BDD for F • Bartzis & Bultan (2006): • Space & Time: O(n *(a1+…+an)) • Encoding crucial, if well-chosen better than ADDs

  12. Cost-Optimal Search

  13. Correctness Theorem: The latest plan stored by the symbolic search planner Cost-Optimal-Symbolic-BFS has minimal cost. Proof: The algorithm applies full duplicate detection and traverses entire planning state space. It generates each planning state exactly once. Only clearly inferior states are pruned in the intersection (when evaluated in Eval and taken into conjunct with Bound). Therefore, Metric empty only if there is no state in the intersection that has an improved bound.

  14. Memory Savings • Locality k: Number of Previous Layers to be looked up for Duplicate Elimination • Undirected Graphs: k=2 Layers, • Planning Graphs: k<5 • Store only Layers that correspond to Concrete State Space • m-fold reduction, m=#Automata • Automata Transition correspond to Axioms

  15. Results GA-Optimization

  16. Conclusion • 1st Approach to PDB optimization • Solves Pattern Selection Problem • Some Memory Saving Strategies • Results: See IPC-5

  17. Future Work • Implement Bartzis & Bultan‘s Method: So far we are using Buddy‘s Functionality to come up with same result but with more work (fixpoint computation) • Bidirectional Constraint Search • Natural Numbers, Real-Time Variables: Use Büchi-Automata Representation for Presburger Arithmetic as e.g. suggested by Felix Klaedtke CAV-06 • Combine Symbolic Search and Externalization ( ICAPS 05)

More Related