Abstract
In recent years, researchers have reformulated STRIPS planning problems as SAT problems or CSPs. In this paper, we discuss the Constraint-Based Interval Planning (CBIP) paradigm, which can represent planning problems incorporating interval time and resources. We describe how to reformulate mutual exclusion constraints for a CBIP-based system, the Extendible Uniform Remote Operations Planner Architecture (EUROPA). We show that reformulations involving dynamic variable domains restrict the algorithms which can be used to solve the resulting DCSP. We present an alternative formulation which does not employ dynamic domains, and describe the relative merits of the different reformulations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. Blum and M. Furst. ”fast planning through planning graph analysis”. Artificial Intelligence, 90:281–300, 1997.
R. Bayardo and D. Miranker. A complexity analysis of space bounded learning algorithms for the constraint satisfaction problem. Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 298–304, 1996.
M. B. Do and S. Khambhampati. Solving planning-graph by compiling it into csp. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling, 2000.
R. Dechter, I. Meiri, and J. Pearl. Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 49:61–94, 1991.
M. Ginsberg. Dynamic backtracking. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1:25–46, 1993.
F. Glover. Tabu search: Part i. ORSA Journal on Computing, 1989.
A. Jónsson and J. Frank. A framework for dynamic constraint reasoning using procedural constraints. Euopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence (to appear), 2000.
Ari K. Jónsson, Paul H. Morris, Nicola Muscettola, Kanna Rajan, and Ben Smith. Planning in interplanetary space: Theory and practice. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling, 2000.
A. Jónsson. Procedural Reasoning in Constraint Satisfaction PhD thesis, Stanford University Computer Science Department, 1997.
D. Joslin. Passive and Active Decision Postponement in Plan Generation. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University Computer Science Department, 1996.
D. Weld M. Ernst, T. Millstein. 1169–1176. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1997.
N. Muscettola. Hsts: Integrated planning and scheduling. In M. Zweben and M. Fox, editors, Intelligent Scheduling, pages 169–212. Morgan Kaufman, 1994.
S. Penberthy. Planning with Continuous Change PhD thesis, University of Washington Department of Computer Science and Engineering, 1993.
D. Smith, J. Frank, and A. Jónsson. Bridging the gap between planning and scheduling. Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(1):61–94, 2000.
B. Selman and H. Kautz. Pushing the envelope: Planning, propositional logic, and stochastic search. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1194–1201, 1996.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Frank, J., Jónsson, A.K., Morris, P. (2000). On Reformulating Planning as Dynamic Constraint Satisfaction. In: Choueiry, B.Y., Walsh, T. (eds) Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation. SARA 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1864. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44914-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44914-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67839-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44914-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive