Cs221 logic-planning

CS 221: Artificial Intelligence Planning (and Basic Logic) Peter Norvig and Sebastian Thrun Slide credits: Stuart Russell, Rina Dechter, Rao Kambhampati

AI: Dealing with Complexity Agent Design Reflex➔Memory-Based Reflex➔Goal-Based➔Utility-Based Environment ➔ Partially Observable, Stochastic, Dynamic, Multi-agent, Adversarial Representation Atomic➔Factored➔Structured

What’s wrong with Problem-Solving Plan: [Forward, Forward, Forward, …]

What’s wrong with Problem-Solving

Planning A plan is a program Not just a straight-line sequence of actions Planning and acting can be interleaved Closed loop, not closed eyes Representation is more flexible Can deal with partially-described states Can deal with features, objects, relations Can be hierarchical

Dealing with Partial Observability: World vs. Belief States

Sensorless – Belief States - Conformant Plans

Deterministic world Slippery wheels Partial (local) Observability and Stochastic Worlds Deterministic actions; observe only local square Observe only local square; Suck is determ. R/L are stoch. (may fail to move)

Slippery wheels Planning and Sensing in Partially Observable and Stochastic World What is a plan to achieve all states clean? [1: Suck ; 2: Right ; ( if A : goto 2); 3: Suck ] also written as [ Suck ; ( while A : Right ); Suck ] Observe only local square; Suck is determ. R/L are stoch.; may fail to move

Search Graph as And/Or Tree What do we need to guarantee success? What kind of guarantee?

As Equations, not Tree b is a belief state: a set of states o is an observation; a percept a is an action b’ = UPDATE(PREDICT( b, a ) , o )

Kindergarten world: dirt may appear anywhere at any time, But actions are guaranteed to work. b1 b3 =UPDATE( b1 ,[ A,Clean ]) b5 = UPDATE( b4,… ) b2 =PREDICT( b1, Suck ) b4 =PREDICT( b3 , Right )

State Representation Bayes Nets? Factored SQL data base? One table: Factored; Several: Structured Java program? Structured

Representation Atomic Representation s 1 = s 2 ; Result( s, a ) = s ′; GoalTest( s ); Factored Representation Attribute( s ) = val … ( val numeric or Boolean) Result and GoalTest in terms of attributes Structured Representation All of above Relations, Functions: Rel( a , b , c ); F( a , b ) = c Objects; with Quantifiers (for all ∀x, there exists ∃y)

Planning with Factored States World is made up of states which are defined in terms of state variables Can be Boolean or categorical or continuous Where have we used this before? State: complete assignment over state variables So, k Boolean state variables represent how many states? Actions change the values of the state variables Applicability conditions of actions are also specified in terms of partial assignments over state variables

“ Classical” Planning State : conjunction of Boolean state variables Action Schema : Action ( Fly ( p, from, to ), Precond: At ( p , from ) ∧ Plane ( p ) ∧ Airport ( from ) ∧ Airport ( to ) Effect: ¬ At ( p , from ) ∧ At ( p , to )) Implicitly defines Actions ( s ) and Result ( s, a )

Expressiveness of the language

Advantages of the Language Natural to read, write, verify Abstract over similar actions Easy to extend with more complex syntax and semantics Can be compiled or interpreted Can automatically derived heuristics (relaxed problem)

Planning Algorithms Forward (progression) state-space search … it ’s just search Backward (regresssion) state-space search Consider Goal: Own (0136042597) Action ( Buy ( i ), Pre: ISBN ( i ) Eff: Own ( i )) In general, may involve unbound variables Plan-space search Start with empty plan, add branches

Plan-space search Start Finish Left Sock Finish Start Right Shoe Finish Start Right Shoe Finish Start Left Shoe

Progression vs. Regression Progression has higher branching factor Progression searches in the space of complete (and consistent) states Regression has lower branching factor Regression searches in the space of partial states There are 3 n partial states (as against 2 n complete states) You can also do bidirectional search stop when a (leaf) state in the progression tree entails a (leaf) state (formula) in the regression tree A B A B

State of the art Annual planning competitions Best technique has varied over time Currently: mostly forward state-space Largely due to good heuristics (relaxed prob.) Heuristics for atomic (state search) problem Can only come from outside analysis of domain Heuristics for factored (planning) problem Can be domain-independent

8-puzzle action schema Action ( Slide ( t, a, b ), Pre: On ( t, a )∧ Tile ( t ) ∧ Blank ( b ) ∧ Adjacent ( a,b ) Eff: On (t, b) ∧ Blank ( a ) ∧ ¬ On (t, a) ∧¬ Blank ( b ))

Convex search: ignore del lists

Beyond Classical Planning Convenient to have more expressive lang. “Move all the cargo from SFO to JFK” Can be done with careful extensions to factored planning language Or: Use existing first-order logical provers Strong foundation for studying planning Still, less used in practice than other techniques

First-Order Logic And, Or, Not, Implies (as in propositional logic) Variables ranging over objects Relations and functions over objects Quantifiers ∀(for all) and∃(exists) Goal: ∀c Cargo(c) ⇒ At(c, JFK)

Situation Calculus Actions are objects Situations are objects Function: s2 = Result(s, a) Fluents: At(C1, JFK, s) change over time Possibility axioms Say when an action is possible Successor-state axioms Partially describe the resulting state of an action

Situation Calculus Possibility Axioms (for each action) SomeFormula ( s ) ⇒ Poss ( a, s ) Alive ( Agent, s ) ∧ Have ( Agent, Arrow, s ) ⇒ Poss ( Shoot, s ) Successor-state Axiom (for each fluent) Poss ( a, s ) ⇒( fluent is true ⇔ a made it true ∨ it was true and a left it alone ) Poss(a, s) ⇒ ( Holding ( Agent, g, Result ( s, a )) ⇔ a = Grab ( g ) ∨ ( Holding ( Agent, g, s ) ∧ a ≠ Release ( g )))

Situations as Result of Action Situation Calculus First-order Logic ∃s, p : Goal(s) ∧ s = Result(s0, p) s = Result(s, []) Result(s, [a,b,…]) = Result(Result(s, a), [b,…])

Planning Graphs Planning graphs are an efficient way to create a representation of a planning problem that can be used to Achieve better heuristic estimates Directly construct plans Planning graphs only work for propositional problems Compile to propositional if necessary

Planning Graphs Planning graphs consists of a seq of levels that correspond to time steps in the plan. Level 0 is the initial state. Each level consists of a set of literals and a set of actions that represent what might be possible at that step in the plan Might be is the key to efficiency Records only a restricted subset of possible negative interactions among actions.

Planning Graphs Each level consists of Literals = all those that could be true at that time step, depending upon the actions executed at preceding time steps. Actions = all those actions that could have their preconditions satisfied at that time step, depending on which of the literals actually hold.

Planning Graph Example Init(Have(Cake)) Goal(Have(Cake)  Eaten(Cake)) Action(Eat(Cake), PRECOND: Have(Cake) EFFECT: ¬Have(Cake)  Eaten(Cake)) Action(Bake(Cake), PRECOND: ¬ Have(Cake) EFFECT: Have(Cake))

Planning Graph Example Create level 0 from initial problem state.

Planning Graph Example Add all applicable actions. Add all effects to the next state.

Planning Graph Example Add persistence actions (inaction = no-ops) to map all literals in state S i to state S i+1 .

Planning Graph Example Identify mutual exclusions between actions and literals based on potential conflicts.

Mutual exclusion A mutex relation holds between two actions when: Inconsistent effects : one action negates the effect of another. 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 mutually exclusive with the precondition of the other. A mutex relation holds between two literals when: one is the negation of the other OR each possible action pair that could achieve the literals is mutex (inconsistent support).

Cake example Level S 1 contains all literals that could result from picking any subset of actions in A 0 Conflicts between literals that can not occur together (as a consequence of the selection action) are represented by mutex links. S1 defines multiple states and the mutex links are the constraints that define this set of states.

Cake example Repeat process until graph levels off: two consecutive levels are identical

PG and Heuristic Estimation PG ’s provide information about the problem PG is a relaxed problem. A literal that does not appear in the final level of the graph cannot be achieved by any plan. h(s) = ∞ Level Cost: First level in which a goal appears Very low estimate, since several actions can occur Improvement: restrict to one action per level using serial PG (add mutex links between every pair of actions, except persistence actions).

PG and Heuristic Estimation Cost of a conjunction of goals Max-level: maximum first level of any of the goals Sum-level: sum of first levels of all the goals Set-level: First level in which all goals appear without being mutex

The GRAPHPLAN Algorithm Extract a solution directly from the PG function GRAPHPLAN( problem ) return solution or failure graph  INITIAL-PLANNING-GRAPH( problem ) goals  GOALS[ problem ] loop do if goals all non-mutex in last level of graph then do solution  EXTRACT-SOLUTION( graph, goals, LEN (graph) ) if solution  failure then return solution else if NO-SOLUTION-POSSIBLE( graph ) then return failure graph  EXPAND-GRAPH( graph, problem )

GRAPHPLAN example Initially the plan consist of 5 literals from the initial state (S0). Add actions whose preconditions are satisfied by EXPAND-GRAPH (A0) Also add persistence actions and mutex relations. Add the effects at level S1 Repeat until goal is in level Si

GRAPHPLAN example EXPAND-GRAPH also looks for mutex relations Inconsistent effects E.g. Remove(Spare, Trunk) and LeaveOverNight due to At(Spare,Ground) and not At(Spare, Ground) Interference E.g. Remove(Flat, Axle) and LeaveOverNight At(Flat, Axle) as PRECOND and not At(Flat,Axle) as EFFECT Competing needs E.g. PutOn(Spare,Axle) and Remove(Flat, Axle) due to At(Flat.Axle) and not At(Flat, Axle) Inconsistent support E.g. in S2, At(Spare,Axle) and At(Flat,Axle)

GRAPHPLAN example In S2, the goal literals exist and are not mutex with any other Solution might exist and EXTRACT-SOLUTION will try to find it EXTRACT-SOLUTION can search with: Initial state = last level of PG and goal goals of planning problem Actions = select any set of non-conflicting actions that cover the goals in the state Goal = reach level S0 such that all goals are satisfied Cost = 1 for each action.

GRAPHPLAN Termination Termination of graph construction? YES PG are monotonically increasing or decreasing: Literals increase monotonically Actions increase monotonically Mutexes decrease monotonically Because of these properties and because there is a finite number of actions and literals, every PG will eventually level off

Cs221 logic-planning

More Related Content

What's hot (6)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Cs221 logic-planning (20)

More from darwinrlo (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

Cs221 logic-planning

Editor's Notes