1:
2: \subsection{Representations for conformant planning}
3: Representations used for reasoning and planning in an open world can be broadly categorized as those that operate using the set of all possible worlds, and those that rely instead on reasoning using a specification of incomplete state of knowledge. Presented here \psiplan{} belongs to the second of these categories.
4:
5:
6: \ignore{
7: Among planners that operate in presence of incompleteness in the
8: knowledge of the initial state of the world are those that perform
9: {\em contingency} (or {\em conditional}) planning
10: (\cite{peot-smith-92}, \cite{pryor-collins-96},
11: \cite{rintanen-99}), i.e. build branching
12: plans for all possible values of unknown propositions, planners that
13: find a solution for any state consistent with
14: the initial information, also called {\em conformant} planning,
15: (\cite{cimatti-roveri-99},
16: \cite{reiter-00},\cite{eiter-etal-00}, \cite{smith-weld-98}, \cite{eiter-etal-00}) or use sensing actions interleaved with execution of incomplete plans
17: (\cite{ambros-ingerson-steel-88}, \cite{etzioni-etal-92},
18: \cite{golden-etal-94}, \cite{golden-thesis}, \cite{babaian-thesis})
19: The planner \psipop{} presented here is a conformant algorithm,
20: and we have presented a brief comparison with other systems in the
21: introduction.
22: }
23:
24:
25: %Approaches to planning based on theorem-proving are presented in
26: %(\cite{reiter-00},\cite{levesque-96},\cite{scherl-levesque-93},\cite{eiter-etal-00}).
27:
28: Among the planning systems in the second category is a situation-calculus based planner by
29: Finzi et al. \cite{reiter-00}, implemented in GOLOG \cite{golog}.
30: \ignore{
31: that builds plans by
32: regressing \cite{pirri-reiter,waldinger-77} the formula that captures achievement of the goal
33: % in a situation obtained by performing
34: after a sequence of actions executed from the initial situation
35: to a logically equivalent formula about the initial situation only, and then
36: checking whether the regressed formula can be proven from the specification
37: of the initial situation. Along with regression this planner
38: eliminates futile partial plans by checking them against the domain specific
39: description of a ``bad situation'' in the style of Bacchus and Kabanza
40: \cite{bacchus-kabanza-00}.
41: }
42: The planning task is reduced to theorem
43: proving in situtation calculus, and the authors present two approaches to theorem proving
44: from the initial state. One approach invokes a Davis-Putnam based theorem
45: prover every time entailment from initial situation is checked.
46: The other approach intends to minimize the time spent checking
47: entailment by precompiling the
48: specification of the initial state into its equivalent form containing
49: all prime implicates of the original specification. (The reduction to prime
50: implicates is akin to \psiplan's saturation of the initial state.)
51: From the prime-implicate form further theorem proving is
52: done by subsumption of clauses. \ignore{However, in the worst case
53: the number of prime implicates generated for a clause is exponential
54: in the number of distinct atoms in those clauses. }
55:
56: The foregoing is the only conformant planner that
57: subsumes the state and goal language of \psiplan{}. However, the examples presented in the paper do not contain universally quantified disjunctive goals with exceptions that are handled by \psiplan{}.
58: The generality of the situation-calculus permits any
59: first-order specification of the initial and goal
60: situations, and actions, however, at a price of the complexity of
61: planning. In \psiplan{}, we have deliberately and significantly
62: restricted the language for the sake of reduced complexity of reasoning.
63:
64: \corr{2}{
65: A subset of situation calculus with equality, which has tractable, sound
66: and under certain conditions complete action progression procedure from an incompletely specified state is presented by Liu and Levesque in
67: \cite{liu-levesque-05}. There are similarities
68: between \psiplan{} and the language of Liu and Levesque, in particular
69: in the use of universally quantified statements in the knowledge
70: base. However, neither language subsumes the other one in the
71: expressive power.
72: %While the presented subset represents conditional
73: %effects of the actions, simultaneous tractability and completeness of action
74: %progression are achievable only when the preconditions for every
75: %conditional effect are known, i.e. there is no uncertainty about
76: %any of the effects resulting from taking the action.
77: }
78:
79: \corr{2}{
80: Shirazi and Amir (\cite{shirazi-amir-05}) also address the problem of progressing a belief state encoded in first-order logical sentences over a sequence of actions. They present special purpose algorithms for computing the progression, which they call {\em logical filtering}, in polynomial time. The polynomial time complexity of belief update is achieved for STRIPS and also {\em permuting} actions. An action is called permuting, if for each world \m{w'} there is at most one \m{w} such that \m{do(a,w)=w'}, i.e. for every world potentially resulting from execution of action \m{a}, there is a unique "original" world state. \psiplan's actions are not permuting, however they are similar to STRIPS actions in the sense that the assert list of an action includes only those literals that change as the result of an action and there are no conditional effects. Thus, the polynomial time complexity of \psiplan's update procedure is consistent with the findings of Shirazi and Amir.
81: }
82:
83: \ignore{
84: Levesque in \cite{levesque-96} points to the weaknesses of
85: early works on open-world planning in specifying what the solution
86: ,plan is in presence of incomplete information, sensing and conditional
87: execution, and
88: introduces a robot program language for encoding plans with sensing
89: actions, conditional execution and iteration. He presents a
90: specification of a solution plan in an algorithm-independent manner
91: using the logical account of actions and the solution to the frame
92: problem in the presence of sensing actions in situation-calculus
93: presented in \cite{scherl-levesque-93}.
94: }
95:
96: \ignore{
97: }
98:
99: Eiter et al. \cite{eiter-etal-00,eiter-etal-04} propose a (propositional) logic
100: based planning language \m{\cal K} for planning with incomplete information as answer set programming. In this framework, proposed originally by Lifschitz \cite{lifschitz-99}, a plan is the answer set of a logical program formulated using a specialized logical language. \m{\cal K} represents lack of knowledge using negation as failure semantics. It supports both knowledge state and possible world planning. The authors further distinguish between optimistic and secure (i.e. conformant) planning. Optimistic plans may not be executable, due to their assumptions on the missing information. \m{\cal K} supports conditional effects, but does not allow any universal quantification on goals or state description.
101:
102:
103:
104: \corr{2}{
105: Thielscher \cite{thielscher-05} presents FLUX - a logical programming
106: framework for agent program design in the presence of incomplete information and sensing.
107: FLUX is based on fluent calculus and is implemented as a set of
108: constraints, defining the domain, action update, agent's knowledge and
109: action execution. The syntax of the language is carefully restricted
110: to provide linear time evaluation of the constraints. The constraint
111: language includes universally quantified negated clauses, similar to
112: the simple \psiforms{} of \psiplan. However, unlike \psiplan{},
113: the constraint solver assumes a finite domain, and does not represent
114: exceptions to the universally quantified clauses. FLUX has nice computational
115: properties, but it is not complete. Also differently from \psiplan{}, the
116: FLUX framework is designed for programming the intended
117: behavior of the agent via a designer-specified strategy, which defines
118: the set of agent control rules, rather than the problem of
119: automatically constructing a sequence of actions that will result in
120: the achievement of the goal. }
121:
122:
123:
124: Conformant Graphplan \cite{smith-weld-98} and its extension to
125: planning with sensing, SGP \cite{weld-etal-98} are propositional
126: Graphplan \cite{blum-furst-95} based open world planners that
127: consider every possible world and thus rely on the domain of objects being
128: sufficiently small. However, in small domains these planners are able of
129: generating remarkably long plans. Graphplan based planners perform a
130: search in a
131: space of graphs generated by forward-chaining in the state space,
132: and their performance degrades when the initial state contains large
133: number of irrelevant atoms. \ignore{ Nguyen and Kambhampati \cite{nguyen-kambhampati-01} use search control heuristics similar to those used in
134: Graphplan to produce a partial order planning RePOP algorithm that
135: is at least competitive with Graphplan and outperforms it in some domains.
136: }
137:
138: CMBP planner \cite{cimatti-roveri-99} is a conformant planner based
139: on model checking. Like Conformant Graphplan it performs a
140: forward-chaining analysis, but relies on an effective way of
141: encoding sets of possible worlds and its performance is less
142: dependent on the amount of irrelevant information in the initial state.
143: CMBP uses action representation in the form of non-deterministic state
144: transition relations.
145:
146: An approach to conformant planning as a heuristic search in the space of belief states that are sets of world states is presented by Bonet and Geffner (\cite{bonet-geffner-00}). An admissible heuristic function is computed based on the distance to the goal state under the assumption of complete information. The search produces an optimal plan, however the algorithm relies on the finiteness of the state space, which is not achievable when the domain of objects is infinite. The action language used is an extension of STRIPS that includes function symbols, negation, disjunction, non-deterministic actions and conditional effects.
147:
148: \ignore{
149: Bonet and Geffner (\cite{bonet-geffner-00}) formulate
150: conformant, contingent and probabilistic
151: contingent planning as a heuristic search in the space of belief
152: states and present algorithms with performance comparable to
153: CMBP. The action language used is an extension
154: of STRIPS that includes function symbols, negation, disjunction,
155: non-deterministic actions and conditional effects.
156:
157:
158: Probabilistic planners like BURIDAN \cite{kushmerick-etal-95} tackle
159: the uncertainty in the initial state by using a
160: probability distribution over all possible initial states, and use
161: actions with probabilistically modeled outcomes to build plans that
162: maximize the probability of a goal in the framework of
163: Partially Ordered Planning. BURIDAN-C \cite{draper-etal-94} is an
164: extension of BURIDAN to planning with sensing and conditional
165: execution.
166:
167:
168: CNLP \cite{peot-smith-92} and CASSANDRA \cite{pryor-collins-96} are {\em
169: conditional planners} that build plans for each possible
170: value of an unknown proposition for STRIPS-like action languages.
171: The planner of Rintanen \cite{rintanen-99} presents
172: conditional planning as a satisfiability problem of Boolean formulae
173: quantified over possible values of unknown propositions (T or F) and
174: presents an analysis of the complexity of conditional planning.
175: When incompleteness of the domain specification is massive, however,
176: conditional planning is not only prohibitively complex, but actually
177: impossible when the set of domain objects is only
178: partially known and is very large or infinite. For example, it is
179: impossible to build a plan of
180: downloading a set of relevant papers until the titles of these papers
181: are identified via execution of an incomplete plan involving sensing.
182: \psiplan{} was designed to operate in such domains; its extension that
183: includes sensing actions is described in \cite{babaian-thesis}, and
184: a further extension, \psipopse{}, that interleaves planning with
185: execution was used to build the Writer's Aid application
186: \cite{waid-iui}.
187: }
188:
189: IPE \cite{ambros-ingerson-steel-88}, SENSE-P \cite{etzioni-etal-92},
190: XII\cite{golden-etal-94}, PUCCINI \cite{golden-thesis} are causal
191: link planners that interleave planning with execution of incomplete plans.
192: The action description language of PUCCINI, SADL \cite{golden-weld-96}
193: includes actions with conditional and informational effects. However,
194: to the best of our knowledge there are no completeness results for
195: conformant planning with SADL.
196:
197: PKS \cite{petrick-bacchus} is a forward chaining planner based on a
198: representation of the agent's knowledge that captures a set of
199: possible worlds via a set of knowledge formulas similarly to
200: \psiplan's SOK. The representation of
201: Petrick and Baccus includes functional symbols, conditional plans and
202: actions with conditional effects, all of which are not represented in
203: \psiplan{} for the reason of tractability. However, the PKS planner only
204: admits ground literals in its goal language and does not handle
205: universally quantified negated goals. PKS is also incomplete, but
206: the authors report that it is able to generate plans in many
207: domains.
208:
209: \ignore{
210: Petrick and Bacchus have also used the LCW mechanism in their representation
211: (\cite{bacchus-petrick,petrick-bacchus}) for open world planning with sensing and execution that distingushes between planning and execution-time effects. The inference procedure IA presented in \cite{bachus-petrick} is designed for only atomic queries and is incomplete, however the authors claim that this does not preclude their PKS planner from generating solution plans. }
212:
213: \edit{A(01),B(15)}{
214: The LCW \cite{etzioni-etal-97} (see introduction) language is extended in
215: \cite{levy-96,friedman-weld-97} to handling exceptions. Levy in
216: \cite{levy-96}
217: uses extended LCW sentences, called Local Completeness (LC) sentences, to
218: represent database
219: completeness information and derive answer completeness
220: property of a conjunctive query. This is analogous to computing
221: whether a SOK entails a universally quantified knowledge goal, where the SOK is
222: given by the combination of relational tables and the knowledge goal
223: is to know all individual objects that satisfy a given query.
224: Friedman and Weld \cite{friedman-weld-97} extend on Levy's work
225: for the purpose of eliminating redundant information gathering from
226: databases by an Internet agent. They present a method of determining
227: subsumption from LC sentences: whether a set of relational tables
228: contains all information available in another relational table.
229: Thus, both of these works only consider the setting in which there are no
230: actions that can change the world, do not address a changing
231: world or planning, and do
232: not present any methods that would make these extensions amenable to
233: their use in an open world planning algorithm, such as the image and
234: e-difference operations of \psiplan{} that are critical in the
235: computation of state update after an action, causal links and threat
236: resolution.
237: }
238:
239:
240:
241: \subsection{Complexity}\label{sec:rel-complexity}
242: Complexity of propositional planning with incomplete information, with
243: and without sensing actions, has been addressed by many researchers (e.g.
244: \cite{haslum-jonsson-99}, \cite{eiter-etal-04}, \cite{baral-etal-00},
245: \cite{turner-02}). Results presented in these works, although
246: for different state and action languages, generally show that the complexity of
247: constructing conformant plans of polynomial length is greater than
248: planning with complete information, which is NP-complete.
249: Though we have not proven the following formally, from the
250: results of this paper it appears that: (a) checking whether
251: a given plan (of polynomial length) solves a given problem in \psiplan{}
252: can be done in polynomial time and, thus,
253: (b) determining whether there exists a plan (of polynomial length) that
254: solves a given problem in \psiplan{} is NP-complete.
255: These results do not contradict the results of Baral et al., nor those of
256: Turner \cite{turner-02}, as we explain below; the key to the reduced
257: complexity of \psiplan{}-based planning compared to the analysis in these
258: papers seems to be the absence of conditional effects.
259:
260: Baral et al. \cite{baral-etal-00} present complexity results for a
261: variety of problems related to open world planning with action
262: language \m{\cal A}. In particular, they show the problem of finding all
263: solution plans in presence of incomplete information and no sensing
264: belongs to the class \m{\Sigma_2P}. To keep the complexity of
265: planning with incomplete
266: information within the NP-completeness bounds, they propose a
267: 0-approximation, which sacrifices completeness.
268:
269: In \psiplan{} as in 0-approximation of Baral et al., the set of possible worlds
270: is represented by a set of propositions that are known to be true. However,
271: unlike the action language A used in Baral et al.'s work, \psiplan's action
272: language does not allow for conditional effects, and so all of an action's
273: effects are {\em guaranteed} to be true after the (executable) action
274: is performed.
275: In contrast, in action language A determining the effect of the
276: action and thus the
277: resulting set of possible worlds sometimes requires an analysis of possible
278: values of unknown propositions. 0-approximation does not involve such
279: analysis and thus loses such plans.
280:
281: For example having no information at all and an action \m{a_0} with conditional
282: effect "\m{a_0} causes p if \m{\neg{}p}", a plan that consists of a
283: single action \m{a_0}
284: achieves \m{p}, but it will be missed by 0-approximation. Without the
285: analysis of
286: the result of performing \m{a_0} in two possible initial states
287: (corresponding to the two different values of p), it is impossible to
288: conclude that \m{p} is true after performing \m{a_0}. That is the
289: reason why 0-approximation will miss it.
290: In \psiplan{}, there are no conditional effects, and so action \m{a_0}
291: from above
292: cannot be represented. Once executability of an action is determined, all
293: effects are guaranteed and the set of possible worlds is precisely described
294: by the single updated state of knowledge. Thus, in \psiplan{} completeness of
295: conformant planning is preserved without an increase of complexity over
296: classical planning.
297:
298: Turner \cite{turner-02} presents a comprehensive complexity analysis
299: of a set of planning problems by using a very general framework for
300: describing a planning problem. This framework represents actions as
301: state transition relations and integrates many action languages
302: including those with conditional effects, nondeterminism and concurrency.
303: As in Baral et al. his results on conformant planning consider actions
304: that may have conditional effects, and are more general than
305: \psiplan's.
306:
307: Haslum and Jonsson's paper \cite{haslum-jonsson-99} states a
308: PSPACE-completeness result for the problem of verifying existence of a
309: conformant plan of unbounded length with STRIPS-like actions. This
310: result is presented without proof and thus it is difficult to analyze
311: it for the case of polynomially bounded-length plans.
312:
313:
314:
315:
316:
317:
318:
319:
320:
321: