Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning heuristics for ordering plan goals through static operator analysis

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 1994)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 869))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 129 Accesses

Abstract

There is a trade-off between the generality and efficiency of automatic planning systems which means that general planners tend to be inefficient, the problem of “efficiency versus generality”. Here we present PRECEDE, a novel method of off-line compilation, that analyses domain operators and produces heuristics that reduce search during plan generation. We present a declarative specification of PRECEDE, illustrate it with a worked example and discuss the results of some empirical tests and related work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. O. Ezioni. Acquiring search-control knowledge via static analysis. Artificial Intelligence, 62, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. T. Bylander. Complexity Results for Planning. In Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Dawson and L. Siklóssy. The Role of Preprocessing in Problem Solving Systems. In Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. Drummond and K. Currie. Goal Ordering in Partially Ordered Plans. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  5. O. Etzioni. Why PRODIGY/EBL Works. In Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. E. Fikes and N. J. Nilsson. STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  7. E. Fink and Q. Yang. Automatically Abstracting the Effects of Operators. In Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems: Proceedings of the First International Conference, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. F. Van Harmelen and A. Bundy. Explanation-Based Generalisation=Partial Evaluation. Artificial Intelligence, 36:401–412, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  9. K. B. Irani and J. Cheng. Subgoal Ordering and Goal Augmentation for Heuristic Problem Solving. In Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  10. K. B. Irani and J. Cheng. Ordering Problem Subgoals. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Knoblock. Automatically Generating Abstractions for Problem Solving. PhD thesis, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. V. Lifschitz. On the Semantics of STRIPS. In Proc. 1986 workshop: Reasoning about actions and plans, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. A. Perez and O. Ezioni. DYNAMIC: A new role for training problems in EBL. Technical Report CMU-CS-92-124, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Minton. Quantitative Results concerning the utility of Explanation-Based Learning. In Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 564–569, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S. Minton, J. G. Carbonell, C. A. Knoblock, D. R. Kuokka, O. Etzioni, and Y. Gill. Explanation-Based Learning: A Problem Solving Perspective. Artificial Intelligence, 40:63–118, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. M. Porteous. Compilation-Based Performance Improvement for Generative Planners. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, The City University, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  17. T. L. McCluskey. Explanation-based and Similarity-Based Learning. In Proceedings of the 4th European Working Session on Learning. Pitman, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  18. A. Tate. Project Planning Using a Hierarchical Non-linear Planner. Technical Report Department of Artificial Intelligence memo 75, University of Edinburgh, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  19. D. Wilkins. Practical Planning: Extending the Classical A.I. Paradigm. Addison-Wesley, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The School of Computing and Mathematics, The University of Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, Queensgate, Huddersfield, UK

    T. L. McCluskey & J. M. Porteous

Authors
  1. T. L. McCluskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. M. Porteous
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Zbigniew W. Raś Maria Zemankova

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1994 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

McCluskey, T.L., Porteous, J.M. (1994). Learning heuristics for ordering plan goals through static operator analysis. In: Raś, Z.W., Zemankova, M. (eds) Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. ISMIS 1994. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 869. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58495-1_41

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-58495-1_41

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-58495-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49010-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation