Jose is also home to a myriad of historic attractions. While most museums deal in antiquity, the Tech Museum of Innovation celebrates technology's cutting edge. The dazzling, mango-colored We are delighted to announce the to aaai04@aaai.org. Please note that 132,000-square-foot domed building continuation of the cooperative effort the deadline for early registrations is serves as a dynamic learning resource with AI Journal, giving unlimited May 28, 2004. Through hands-on exploration, members can view and browse tables Marriott Hotel, in San Jose, California.

The SHOP2 planning system received one of the awards for distinguished performance in the 2002 International Planning Competition. This paper describes the features of SHOP2 which enabled it to excel in the competition, especially those aspects of SHOP2 that deal with temporal and metric planning domains.

Planning with numeric state variables has been a challenge for many years, and was a part of the 3rd International Planning Competition (IPC-3). Currently one of the most popular and successful algorithmic techniques in STRIPS planning is to guide search by a heuristic function, where the heuristic is based on relaxing the planning task by ignoring the delete lists of the available actions. We present a natural extension of ``ignoring delete lists'' to numeric state variables, preserving the relevant theoretical properties of the STRIPS relaxation under the condition that the numeric task at hand is ``monotonic''. We then identify a subset of the numeric IPC-3 competition language, ``linear tasks'', where monotonicity can be achieved by pre-processing. Based on that, we extend the algorithms used in the heuristic planning system FF to linear tasks. The resulting system Metric-FF is, according to the IPC-3 results which we discuss, one of the two currently most efficient numeric planners.

Sapa is a domain-independent heuristic forward chaining planner that can handle durative actions, metric resource constraints, and deadline goals. It is designed to be capable of handling the multi-objective nature of metric temporal planning. Our technical contributions include (i) planning-graph based methods for deriving heuristics that are sensitive to both cost and makespan (ii) techniques for adjusting the heuristic estimates to take action interactions and metric resource limitations into account and (iii) a linear time greedy post-processing technique to improve execution flexibility of the solution plans. An implementation of Sapa using many of the techniques presented in this paper was one of the best domain independent planners for domains with metric and temporal constraints in the third International Planning Competition, held at AIPS-02. We describe the technical details of extracting the heuristics and present an empirical evaluation of the current implementation of Sapa.

VHPOP is a partial order causal link (POCL) planner loosely based on UCPOP. It draws from the experience gained in the early to mid 1990's on flaw selection strategies for POCL planning, and combines this with more recent developments in the field of domain independent planning such as distance based heuristics and reachability analysis. We present an adaptation of the additive heuristic for plan space planning, and modify it to account for possible reuse of existing actions in a plan. We also propose a large set of novel flaw selection strategies, and show how these can help us solve more problems than previously possible by POCL planners. VHPOP also supports planning with durative actions by incorporating standard techniques for temporal constraint reasoning. We demonstrate that the same heuristic techniques used to boost the performance of classical POCL planning can be effective in domains with durative actions as well. The result is a versatile heuristic POCL planner competitive with established CSP-based and heuristic state space planners.

TALplanner is a forward-chaining planner that relies on domain knowledge in the shape of temporal logic formulas in order to prune irrelevant parts of the search space. TALplanner recently participated in the third International Planning Competition, which had a clear emphasis on increasing the complexity of the problem domains being used as benchmark tests and the expressivity required to represent these domains in a planning system. Like many other planners, TALplanner had support for some but not all aspects of this increase in expressivity, and a number of changes to the planner were required. After a short introduction to TALplanner, this article describes some of the changes that were made before and during the competition. We also describe the process of introducing suitable domain knowledge for several of the competition domains.

The Model Checking Integrated Planning System (MIPS) is a temporal least commitment heuristic search planner based on a flexible object-oriented workbench architecture. Its design clearly separates explicit and symbolic directed exploration algorithms from the set of on-line and off-line computed estimates and associated data structures. MIPS has shown distinguished performance in the last two international planning competitions. In the last event the description language was extended from pure propositional planning to include numerical state variables, action durations, and plan quality objective functions. Plans were no longer sequences of actions but time-stamped schedules. As a participant of the fully automated track of the competition, MIPS has proven to be a general system; in each track and every benchmark domain it efficiently computed plans of remarkable quality. This article introduces and analyzes the most important algorithmic novelties that were necessary to tackle the new layers of expressiveness in the benchmark problems and to achieve a high level of performance. The extensions include critical path analysis of sequentially generated plans to generate corresponding optimal parallel plans. The linear time algorithm to compute the parallel plan bypasses known NP hardness results for partial ordering by scheduling plans with respect to the set of actions and the imposed precedence relations. The efficiency of this algorithm also allows us to improve the exploration guidance: for each encountered planning state the corresponding approximate sequential plan is scheduled. One major strength of MIPS is its static analysis phase that grounds and simplifies parameterized predicates, functions and operators, that infers knowledge to minimize the state description length, and that detects domain object symmetries. The latter aspect is analyzed in detail. MIPS has been developed to serve as a complete and optimal state space planner, with admissible estimates, exploration engines and branching cuts. In the competition version, however, certain performance compromises had to be made, including floating point arithmetic, weighted heuristic search exploration according to an inadmissible estimate and parameterized optimization.

The addition of durative actions to PDDL2.1 sparked some controversy. Fox and Long argued that actions should be considered as instantaneous, but can start and stop processes. Ultimately, a limited notion of durative actions was incorporated into the language. I argue that this notion is still impoverished, and that the underlying philosophical position of regarding durative actions as being a shorthand for a start action, process, and stop action ignores the realities of modelling and execution for complex systems.

PDDL2.1 was designed to push the envelope of what planning algorithms can do, and it has succeeded. It adds two important features: durative actions, which take time (and may have continuous effects); and objective functions for measuring the quality of plans. The concept of durative actions is flawed; and the treatment of their semantics reveals too strong an attachment to the way many contemporary planners work. Future PDDL innovators should focus on producing a clean semantics for additions to the language, and let planner implementers worry about coupling their algorithms to problems expressed in the latest version of the language. All things considered, Fox and Long have done a terrific job producing PDDL2.1.

I comment on the PDDL 2.1 language and its use in the planning competition, focusing on the choices made for accommodating time and concurrency. I also discuss some methodological issues that have to do with the move toward more expressive planning languages and the balance needed in planning research between semantics and computation.