Evaluating temporal planning domains

William Cushing, Subbarao Kambhampati, Kartik Talamadupula, Daniel S Weld Mausam

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The last eight years have seen dramatic progress in temporal planning as highlighted by the temporal track in the last three International Planning Competitions (IPC). However, our recent work, (Cushing et al. 2007), showed that most of the competition winning planners are only complete for very restricted forms of temporal planning languages that are in a sense indistinguishable from STRIPS. In this paper we consider the impact of those results on the design of benchmark temporal planning domains, and by extension, the temporal planning competition. We start by setting out to verify our speculation that the competition domains are temporally simple. This turns out to be tricky, and we develop a set of increasingly powerful analytic methods for domain analysis. Our analysis establishes that the benchmark domains are indeed inherently sequential (i.e., do not require concurrency). We suggest some real-world domains with required concurrency, and use a compilation argument to show that these are harder in the sense that they correspond to longer sequential plans. We conclude with the argument that temporal planners should be evaluated on both inherently sequential domains as well as those requiring concurrency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling
Pages105-112
Number of pages8
StatePublished - 2007
EventICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling - Providence, RI, United States
Duration: Sep 22 2007Sep 26 2007

Other

OtherICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling
CountryUnited States
CityProvidence, RI
Period9/22/079/26/07

Fingerprint

Planning
Concurrency
Benchmark
Domain Analysis
Speculation
Compilation
Verify

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Strategy and Management
  • Computer Science Applications
  • Mathematics(all)

Cite this

Cushing, W., Kambhampati, S., Talamadupula, K., & Mausam, D. S. W. (2007). Evaluating temporal planning domains. In ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (pp. 105-112)

Evaluating temporal planning domains. / Cushing, William; Kambhampati, Subbarao; Talamadupula, Kartik; Mausam, Daniel S Weld.

ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. 2007. p. 105-112.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Cushing, W, Kambhampati, S, Talamadupula, K & Mausam, DSW 2007, Evaluating temporal planning domains. in ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. pp. 105-112, ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, Providence, RI, United States, 9/22/07.
Cushing W, Kambhampati S, Talamadupula K, Mausam DSW. Evaluating temporal planning domains. In ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. 2007. p. 105-112
Cushing, William ; Kambhampati, Subbarao ; Talamadupula, Kartik ; Mausam, Daniel S Weld. / Evaluating temporal planning domains. ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. 2007. pp. 105-112
@inproceedings{5fa6904bb1744812896aa789a92164ac,
title = "Evaluating temporal planning domains",
abstract = "The last eight years have seen dramatic progress in temporal planning as highlighted by the temporal track in the last three International Planning Competitions (IPC). However, our recent work, (Cushing et al. 2007), showed that most of the competition winning planners are only complete for very restricted forms of temporal planning languages that are in a sense indistinguishable from STRIPS. In this paper we consider the impact of those results on the design of benchmark temporal planning domains, and by extension, the temporal planning competition. We start by setting out to verify our speculation that the competition domains are temporally simple. This turns out to be tricky, and we develop a set of increasingly powerful analytic methods for domain analysis. Our analysis establishes that the benchmark domains are indeed inherently sequential (i.e., do not require concurrency). We suggest some real-world domains with required concurrency, and use a compilation argument to show that these are harder in the sense that they correspond to longer sequential plans. We conclude with the argument that temporal planners should be evaluated on both inherently sequential domains as well as those requiring concurrency.",
author = "William Cushing and Subbarao Kambhampati and Kartik Talamadupula and Mausam, {Daniel S Weld}",
year = "2007",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9781577353447",
pages = "105--112",
booktitle = "ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Evaluating temporal planning domains

AU - Cushing, William

AU - Kambhampati, Subbarao

AU - Talamadupula, Kartik

AU - Mausam, Daniel S Weld

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - The last eight years have seen dramatic progress in temporal planning as highlighted by the temporal track in the last three International Planning Competitions (IPC). However, our recent work, (Cushing et al. 2007), showed that most of the competition winning planners are only complete for very restricted forms of temporal planning languages that are in a sense indistinguishable from STRIPS. In this paper we consider the impact of those results on the design of benchmark temporal planning domains, and by extension, the temporal planning competition. We start by setting out to verify our speculation that the competition domains are temporally simple. This turns out to be tricky, and we develop a set of increasingly powerful analytic methods for domain analysis. Our analysis establishes that the benchmark domains are indeed inherently sequential (i.e., do not require concurrency). We suggest some real-world domains with required concurrency, and use a compilation argument to show that these are harder in the sense that they correspond to longer sequential plans. We conclude with the argument that temporal planners should be evaluated on both inherently sequential domains as well as those requiring concurrency.

AB - The last eight years have seen dramatic progress in temporal planning as highlighted by the temporal track in the last three International Planning Competitions (IPC). However, our recent work, (Cushing et al. 2007), showed that most of the competition winning planners are only complete for very restricted forms of temporal planning languages that are in a sense indistinguishable from STRIPS. In this paper we consider the impact of those results on the design of benchmark temporal planning domains, and by extension, the temporal planning competition. We start by setting out to verify our speculation that the competition domains are temporally simple. This turns out to be tricky, and we develop a set of increasingly powerful analytic methods for domain analysis. Our analysis establishes that the benchmark domains are indeed inherently sequential (i.e., do not require concurrency). We suggest some real-world domains with required concurrency, and use a compilation argument to show that these are harder in the sense that they correspond to longer sequential plans. We conclude with the argument that temporal planners should be evaluated on both inherently sequential domains as well as those requiring concurrency.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58349091449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58349091449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:58349091449

SN - 9781577353447

SP - 105

EP - 112

BT - ICAPS 2007, 17th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling

ER -