Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

Automated planning and scheduling

Automated planning and scheduling, sometimes denoted as simply AI planning,[1] is a branch of
artificial intelligence that concerns the realization of strategies or action sequences, typically for execution
by intelligent agents, autonomous robots and unmanned vehicles. Unlike classical control and
classification problems, the solutions are complex and must be discovered and optimized in
multidimensional space. Planning is also related to decision theory.

In known environments with available models, planning can be done offline. Solutions can be found and
evaluated prior to execution. In dynamically unknown environments, the strategy often needs to be revised
online. Models and policies must be adapted. Solutions usually resort to iterative trial and error processes
commonly seen in artificial intelligence. These include dynamic programming, reinforcement learning and
combinatorial optimization. Languages used to describe planning and scheduling are often called action
languages.

Overview
Given a description of the possible initial states of the world, a description of the desired goals, and a
description of a set of possible actions, the planning problem is to synthesize a plan that is guaranteed
(when applied to any of the initial states) to generate a state which contains the desired goals (such a state
is called a goal state).

The difficulty of planning is dependent on the simplifying assumptions employed. Several classes of
planning problems can be identified depending on the properties the problems have in several dimensions.

▪ Are the actions deterministic or non-deterministic? For nondeterministic actions,

are the associated probabilities available?
▪ Are the state variables discrete or continuous? If they are discrete, do they have
only a finite number of possible values?
▪ Can the current state be observed unambiguously? There can be full
observability and partial observability.
▪ How many initial states are there, finite or arbitrarily many?
▪ Do actions have a duration?
▪ Can several actions be taken concurrently, or is only one action possible at a
time?
▪ Is the objective of a plan to reach a designated goal state, or to maximize a
reward function?
▪ Is there only one agent or are there several agents? Are the agents cooperative
or selfish? Do all of the agents construct their own plans separately, or are the
plans constructed centrally for all agents?

The simplest possible planning problem, known as the Classical Planning Problem, is determined by:

▪ a unique known initial state,

▪ durationless actions,
▪ deterministic actions,
▪ which can be taken only one at a time,

1 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11
Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

▪ and a single agent.

Since the initial state is known unambiguously, and all actions are deterministic, the state of the world
after any sequence of actions can be accurately predicted, and the question of observability is irrelevant
for classical planning.

Further, plans can be defined as sequences of actions, because it is always known in advance which
actions will be needed.

With nondeterministic actions or other events outside the control of the agent, the possible executions
form a tree, and plans have to determine the appropriate actions for every node of the tree.

Discrete-time Markov decision processes (MDP) are planning problems with:

▪ durationless actions,
▪ nondeterministic actions with probabilities,
▪ full observability,
▪ maximization of a reward function,
▪ and a single agent.

When full observability is replaced by partial observability, planning corresponds to a partially

observable Markov decision process (POMDP).

If there are more than one agent, we have multi-agent planning, which is closely related to game theory.

Domain independent planning

In AI planning, planners typically input a domain model (a description of a set of possible actions which
model the domain) as well as the specific problem to be solved specified by the initial state and goal, in
contrast to those in which there is no input domain specified. Such planners are called "domain
independent" to emphasize the fact that they can solve planning problems from a wide range of domains.
Typical examples of domains are block-stacking, logistics, workflow management, and robot task
planning. Hence a single domain-independent planner can be used to solve planning problems in all these
various domains. On the other hand, a route planner is typical of a domain-specific planner.

Planning domain modelling languages

The most commonly used languages for representing planning domains and specific planning problems,
such as STRIPS and PDDL for Classical Planning, are based on state variables. Each possible state of the
world is an assignment of values to the state variables, and actions determine how the values of the state
variables change when that action is taken. Since a set of state variables induce a state space that has a
size that is exponential in the set, planning, similarly to many other computational problems, suffers from
the curse of dimensionality and the combinatorial explosion.

An alternative language for describing planning problems is that of hierarchical task networks, in which a
set of tasks is given, and each task can be either realized by a primitive action or decomposed into a set of
other tasks. This does not necessarily involve state variables, although in more realistic applications state
variables simplify the description of task networks.

Algorithms for planning

2 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11
Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

Classical planning
▪ forward chaining state space search, possibly enhanced with heuristics
▪ backward chaining search, possibly enhanced by the use of state constraints
(see STRIPS, graphplan)
▪ partial-order planning

Reduction to other problems

▪ reduction to the propositional satisfiability problem (satplan).
▪ reduction to Model checking - both are essentially problems of traversing state
spaces, and the classical planning problem corresponds to a subclass of model
checking problems.

Temporal planning
Temporal planning can be solved with methods similar to classical planning. The main difference is,
because of the possibility of several, temporally overlapping actions with a duration being taken
concurrently, that the definition of a state has to include information about the current absolute time and
how far the execution of each active action has proceeded. Further, in planning with rational or real time,
the state space may be infinite, unlike in classical planning or planning with integer time. Temporal
planning is closely related to scheduling problems when uncertainty is involved and can also be
understood in terms of timed automata. The Simple Temporal Network with Uncertainty (STNU) is a
scheduling problem which involves controllable actions, uncertain events and temporal constraints.
Dynamic Controllability for such problems is a type of scheduling which requires a temporal planning
strategy to activate controllable actions reactively as uncertain events are observed so that all constraints
are guaranteed to be satisfied. [2]

Probabilistic planning
Probabilistic planning can be solved with iterative methods such as value iteration and policy iteration,
when the state space is sufficiently small. With partial observability, probabilistic planning is similarly
solved with iterative methods, but using a representation of the value functions defined for the space of
beliefs instead of states.

Preference-based planning
In preference-based planning, the objective is not only to produce a plan but also to satisfy user-specified
preferences. A difference to the more common reward-based planning, for example corresponding to
MDPs, preferences don't necessarily have a precise numerical value.

Conditional planning
Deterministic planning was introduced with the STRIPS planning system, which is a hierarchical planner.
Action names are ordered in a sequence and this is a plan for the robot. Hierarchical planning can be
compared with an automatic generated behavior tree.[3] The disadvantage is, that a normal behavior tree is
not so expressive like a computer program. That means, the notation of a behavior graph contains action
commands, but no loops or if-then-statements. Conditional planning overcomes the bottleneck and

3 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11
Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

introduces an elaborated notation which is similar to a control flow, known from other programming
languages like Pascal. It is very similar to program synthesis, which means a planner generates sourcecode
which can be executed by an interpreter.[4]

An early example of a conditional planner is “Warplan-C” which was introduced in the mid 1970s.[5]
What is the difference between a normal sequence and a complicated plan, which contains if-then-
statements? It has to do with uncertainty at runtime of a plan. The idea is that a plan can react to sensor
signals which are unknown for the planner. The planner generates two choices in advance. For example, if
an object was detected, then action A is executed, if an object is missing, then action B is executed.[6] A
major advantage of conditional planning is the ability to handle partial plans.[7] An agent is not forced to
plan everything from start to finish but can divide the problem into chunks. This helps to reduce the state
space and solves much more complex problems.

Contingency planning

We speak of "contingent planning" when the environment is observable through sensors, which can be
faulty. It is thus a situation where the planning agent acts under incomplete information. For a contingent
planning problem, a plan is no longer a sequence of actions but a decision tree because each step of the
plan is represented by a set of states rather than a single perfectly observable state, as in the case of
classical planning.[8] The selected actions depend on the state of the system. For example, if it rains, the
agent chooses to take the umbrella, and if it doesn't, they may choose not to take it.

Michael L. Littman showed in 1998 that with branching actions, the planning problem becomes
EXPTIME-complete.[9][10] A particular case of contiguous planning is represented by FOND problems -
for "fully-observable and non-deterministic". If the goal is specified in LTLf (linear time logic on finite
trace) then the problem is always EXPTIME-complete[11] and 2EXPTIME-complete if the goal is
specified with LDLf.

Conformant planning

Conformant planning is when the agent is uncertain about the state of the system, and it cannot make any
observations. The agent then has beliefs about the real world, but cannot verify them with sensing actions,
for instance. These problems are solved by techniques similar to those of classical planning,[12][13] but
where the state space is exponential in the size of the problem, because of the uncertainty about the
current state. A solution for a conformant planning problem is a sequence of actions. Haslum and Jonsson
have demonstrated that the problem of conformant planning is EXPSPACE-complete,[14] and
2EXPTIME-complete when the initial situation is uncertain, and there is non-determinism in the actions
outcomes.[10]

Deployment of planning systems

▪ The Hubble Space Telescope uses a short-term system called SPSS (https://archiv
e.today/20121212180252/http://www.pst.stsci.edu/spss/doc/spss-abs.html) and a
long-term planning system called Spike (http://www.stsci.edu/resources/software_
hardware/spike/).

See also
▪ Action description language
▪ Actor model

4 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11
Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

▪ Applications of artificial intelligence

▪ Constraint satisfaction problem
▪ Reactive planning
▪ Scheduling (computing)
▪ Strategy (game theory)

Lists

▪ List of SMT solvers

▪ List of constraint programming languages
▪ List of emerging technologies
▪ Outline of artificial intelligence

References
1. Ghallab, Malik; Nau, Dana S.; Traverso, Paolo (2004), Automated Planning:
Theory and Practice (http://www.laas.fr/planning/), Morgan Kaufmann,
ISBN 1-55860-856-7, archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090824103124/htt
p://www.laas.fr/planning/) from the original on 2009-08-24, retrieved 2008-08-20
2. Vidal, Thierry (January 1999). "Handling contingency in temporal constraint
networks: from consistency to controllabilities". Journal of Experimental &
Theoretical Artificial Intelligence. 11 (1): 23--45. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.107.1065 (http
s://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.107.1065).
doi:10.1080/095281399146607 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F095281399146607).
3. Neufeld, Xenija and Mostaghim, Sanaz and Sancho-Pradel, Dario and Brand,
Sandy (2017). "Building a Planner: A Survey of Planning Systems Used in
Commercial Video Games". IEEE Transactions on Games. IEEE.
4. Sanelli, Valerio and Cashmore, Michael and Magazzeni, Daniele and Iocchi, Luca
(2017). Short-term human robot interaction through conditional planning and
execution (https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS17/paper/download/1
5750/15146). Proc. of International Conference on Automated Planning and
Scheduling (ICAPS). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190816172319/http
s://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS17/paper/download/15750/15146)
from the original on 2019-08-16. Retrieved 2019-08-16.
5. Peot, Mark A and Smith, David E (1992). Conditional nonlinear planning (https://si
tes.google.com/site/markpeot2/peot92conditional.pdf) (PDF). Artificial
Intelligence Planning Systems. Elsevier. pp. 189–197.
6. Karlsson, Lars (2001). Conditional progressive planning under uncertainty (http
s://www.researchgate.net/publication/2927504). IJCAI. pp. 431–438.
7. Liu, Daphne Hao (2008). A survey of planning in intelligent agents: from
externally motivated to internally motivated systems (http://urresearch.rocheste
r.edu/fileDownloadForInstitutionalItem.action?itemId=5342&itemFileId=8258)
(Technical report). Technical Report TR-2008-936, Department of Computer
Science, University of Rochester. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2023031
5180735/https://urresearch.rochester.edu/fileDownloadForInstitutionalItem.actio
n?itemId=5342&itemFileId=8258) from the original on 2023-03-15. Retrieved
2019-08-16.

5 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11
Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

8. Alexandre Albore; Hector Palacios; Hector Geffner (2009). A Translation-Based

Approach to Contingent Planning (https://web.archive.org/web/20190703164319/
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI-09/paper/download/587/852).
International Joint Conference of Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Pasadena, CA: AAAI.
Archived from the original (http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/IJCAI/IJCAI-09/paper
/download/587/852) on 2019-07-03. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
9. Littman, Michael L. (1997). Probabilistic Propositional Planning: Representations
and Complexity (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.38.307
6). Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press.
pp. 748–754. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190212011907/http://cites
eer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.38.3076) from the original on
2019-02-12. Retrieved 2019-02-10.
10. Jussi Rintanen (2004). Complexity of Planning with Partial Observability (http://w
ww.aaai.org/Papers/ICAPS/2004/ICAPS04-041.pdf) (PDF). Int. Conf. Automated
Planning and Scheduling. AAAI. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201031
014424/https://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICAPS/2004/ICAPS04-041.pdf) (PDF) from
the original on 2020-10-31. Retrieved 2019-07-03.
11. De Giacomo, Giuseppe; Rubin, Sasha (2018). Automata-Theoretic Foundations of
FOND Planning for LTLf and LDLf Goals (https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2018/6
57). IJCAI. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180717154447/https://www.ij
cai.org/proceedings/2018/657) from the original on 2018-07-17. Retrieved
2018-07-17.
12. Palacios, Hector; Geffner, Hector (2009). "Compiling uncertainty away in
conformant planning problems with bounded width" (https://www.jair.org/index.p
hp/jair/article/download/10618/25394). Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research.
35: 623–675. doi:10.1613/jair.2708 (https://doi.org/10.1613%2Fjair.2708).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20200427045035/https://www.jair.org/inde
x.php/jair/article/download/10618/25394) from the original on 2020-04-27.
Retrieved 2019-08-16.
13. Albore, Alexandre; Ramírez, Miquel; Geffner, Hector (2011). Effective heuristics
and belief tracking for planning with incomplete information (https://www.aaai.or
g/ocs/index.php/ICAPS/ICAPS11/paper/viewFile/2709/3129). Twenty-First
International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170706012917/https://aaai.org/ocs/inde
x.php/ICAPS/ICAPS11/paper/viewFile/2709/3129/) from the original on
2017-07-06. Retrieved 2019-08-16.
14. Haslum, Patrik; Jonsson, Peter (2000). "Some Results on the Complexity of
Planning with Incomplete Information". Recent Advances in AI Planning. Lecture
Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 1809: 308–318.
doi:10.1007/10720246_24 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F10720246_24).
ISBN 9783540446576.

Further reading
▪ Vlahavas, I. "Planning and Scheduling" (https://web.archive.org/web/2013122216
5824/http://www.eetn.gr/index.php/eetn-publications/ai-research-in-greece/planni
ng-and-scheduling). EETN. Archived from the original (http://www.eetn.gr/index.p
hp/eetn-publications/ai-research-in-greece/planning-and-scheduling) on
2013-12-22.

External links

6 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11
Automated planning and scheduling - Wikipedia file:///home/christy/M.ScProject/Automated%20plann...

▪ International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (http://www.ica

ps-conference.org/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automated_planning_and_scheduling&

oldid=1177644207"

7 of 7 12/11/23, 10:11