We are interested in solving real-world planning problems and, to that end, argue for the use of domain knowledge in planning. We believe that the field must develop methods capable of using rich knowledge models to make planning tools useful for complex problems. In particular, we compare knowledge rich approaches such as hierarchical task network planning to minimal-knowledge methods such as STRIPS-based planners and disjunctive planners. Finally, we draw an analogy from the current focus of the planning community on disjunctive planners to the experiences of the machine learning community over the past decade.

We are interested in solving real-world planning problems and, to that end, argue for the use of domain knowledge in planning. We believe that the field must develop methods capable of using rich knowledge models to make planning tools useful for complex problems. We discuss the suitability of current planning paradigms for solving these problems. In particular, we compare knowledge rich approaches such as hierarchical task network planning to minimal-knowledge methods such as STRIPS-based planners and disjunctive planners. We argue that the former methods have advantages such as scalability, expressiveness, continuous plan modification during execution, and the ability to interact with humans. However, these planners also have limitations, such as requiring complete domain models and failing to model uncertainty, that often make them inadequate for real-world problems. In this article, we define the terms knowledge-based and primitive-action planning and argue for the use of knowledge-based planning as a paradigm for solving real-world problems. We next summarize some of the characteristics of real-world problems that we are interested in addressing. Several current real-world planning applications are described, focusing on the ways in which knowledge is brought to bear on the planning problem. We describe some existing knowledge-based approaches and then discuss additional capabilities, beyond those available in existing systems, that are needed. Finally, we draw an analogy from the current focus of the planning community on disjunctive planners to the experiences of the machine learning community over the past decade.

The AAAI-2000 Workshop Program was held Sunday and Monday, 3031 July 2000 at the Hyatt Regency Austin and the Austin Convention Center in Austin, Texas. The 15 workshops held were (1) Agent-Oriented Information Systems, (2) Artificial Intelligence and Music, (3) Artificial Intelligence and Web Search, (4) Constraints and AI Planning, (5) Integration of AI and OR: Techniques for Combinatorial Optimization, (6) Intelligent Lessons Learned Systems, (7) Knowledge-Based Electronic Markets, (8) Learning from Imbalanced Data Sets, (9) Learning Statistical Models from Rela-tional Data, (10) Leveraging Probability and Uncertainty in Computation, (11) Mobile Robotic Competition and Exhibition, (12) New Research Problems for Machine Learning, (13) Parallel and Distributed Search for Reasoning, (14) Representational Issues for Real-World Planning Systems, and (15) Spatial and Temporal Granularity.

In recent years, there is a growing awareness of the importance of reachability and relevance-based pruning techniques for planning, but little work specifically targets these techniques. In this paper, we compare the ability of two classes of algorithms to propagate and discover reachability and relevance constraints in classical planning problems. The first class of algorithms operates on SAT encoded planning problems obtained using the linear and Graphplan encoding schemes. It applies unit-propagation and more general resolution steps (involving larger clauses) to these plan encodings. The second class operates at the plan level and contains two families of pruning algorithms: Reachable-k and Relevant-k. Reachable-k provides a coherent description of a number of existing forward pruning techniques used in numerous algorithms, while Relevant-k captures different grades of backward pruning. Our results shed light on the ability of different plan-encoding schemes to propagate information forward and backward and on the relative merit of plan-level and SAT-level pruning methods.

The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS 2000) was held on 14-17 April 2000 at Breckenridge, Colorado; it was colocated with the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000). This conference brought together researchers working in all aspects of problems in planning, scheduling, planning and learning, and plan execution for dealing with complex problems.

By user-driven modeling for end users and near-optimal knowledge-driven scheduling acquired from human experts, races can produce parking schedules for about 400 daily flights in approximately 20 seconds; human experts normally take 4 to 5 hours to do the same. Scheduling results in the form of Gantt charts produced by races are also accepted by the domain experts. After daily scheduling is completed, the messages for aircraft change, and delay messages are reflected and updated into the schedule according to the knowledge of the domain experts. By analyzing the knowledge model of the domain expert, the reactive scheduling steps are effectively represented as the rules, and the scenarios of the graphic user interfaces are designed.

I was asked to give a visionary talk about the future applications of Artificial Intelligence technology; but I should warn you that I'm actually not very good as a visionary. Most of my predictions about what will happen in the industry don't come true even though they ought to. So I'm not going to tell you what the future holds; what I will do is to point out some of the technological trends that are at work. The outline of the talk is as follows: I'll start off by looking at the previous IAAI conferences and reflect on what we've learned from them. Then I'll look at what's changing in the hardware base that sets the context for all the computer applications we do. I think that will lead to interesting new viewpoints. Next I'll sketch what applications might arise from this new viewpoint. Finally, I'll discuss how the development of practical applications ought to interact with the scientific enterprise of trying to understand intelligence, in particular, human intelligence.

The Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS 2000) was held on 14-17 April 2000 at Breckenridge, Colorado; it was colocated with the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2000). This conference brought together researchers working in all aspects of problems in planning, scheduling, planning and learning, and plan execution for dealing with complex problems.

In this project, we have developed the ramp activity coordination expert system (races) to solve aircraft-parking problems. races includes a knowledge-based scheduling system that assigns all daily arriving and departing flights to the gates and remote spots with domain-specific knowledge and heuristics acquired from human experts. races processes complex scheduling problems such as dynamic interrelations among the characteristics of remote spots-gates and aircraft with various other constraints, for example, customs and ground-handling factors, at an airport. By user-driven modeling for end users and near-optimal knowledge-driven scheduling acquired from human experts, races can produce parking schedules for about 400 daily flights in approximately 20 seconds; human experts normally take 4 to 5 hours to do the same. Scheduling results in the form of Gantt charts produced by races are also accepted by the domain experts. races is also designed to deal with the partial adjustment of the schedule when unexpected events occur. After daily scheduling is completed, the messages for aircraft change, and delay messages are reflected and updated into the schedule according to the knowledge of the domain experts. By analyzing the knowledge model of the domain expert, the reactive scheduling steps are effectively represented as the rules, and the scenarios of the graphic user interfaces are designed. Because the modification of the aircraft dispositions, such as aircraft changes and cancellations of flights, is reflected in the current schedule, the modification should be sent to races from the mainframe for the reactive scheduling. The adjustments of the schedule are made semiautomatically by races because there are many irregularities in dealing with the partial rescheduling.

We tackle the problem of planning in nondeterministic domains, by presenting a new approach to conformant planning. Conformant planning is the problem of finding a sequence of actions that is guaranteed to achieve the goal despite the nondeterminism of the domain. Our approach is based on the representation of the planning domain as a finite state automaton. We use Symbolic Model Checking techniques, in particular Binary Decision Diagrams, to compactly represent and efficiently search the automaton. In this paper we make the following contributions. First, we present a general planning algorithm for conformant planning, which applies to fully nondeterministic domains, with uncertainty in the initial condition and in action effects. The algorithm is based on a breadth-first, backward search, and returns conformant plans of minimal length, if a solution to the planning problem exists, otherwise it terminates concluding that the problem admits no conformant solution. Second, we provide a symbolic representation of the search space based on Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs), which is the basis for search techniques derived from symbolic model checking. The symbolic representation makes it possible to analyze potentially large sets of states and transitions in a single computation step, thus providing for an efficient implementation. Third, we present CMBP (Conformant Model Based Planner), an efficient implementation of the data structures and algorithm described above, directly based on BDD manipulations, which allows for a compact representation of the search layers and an efficient implementation of the search steps. Finally, we present an experimental comparison of our approach with the state-of-the-art conformant planners CGP, QBFPLAN and GPT. Our analysis includes all the planning problems from the distribution packages of these systems, plus other problems defined to stress a number of specific factors. Our approach appears to be the most effective: CMBP is strictly more expressive than QBFPLAN and CGP and, in all the problems where a comparison is possible, CMBP outperforms its competitors, sometimes by orders of magnitude.