In 1998, the international planning community was invited to take part in the first planning competition, hosted by the Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems Conference, to provide a new impetus for empirical evaluation and direct comparison of automatic domain-independent planning systems. This article describes the systems that competed in the event, examines the results, and considers some of the implications for the future of the field.

In 1998, the international planning community was invited to take part in the first planning competition, hosted by the Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems Conference, to provide a new impetus for empirical evaluation and direct comparison of automatic domain-independent planning systems. This article describes the systems that competed in the event, examines the results, and considers some of the implications for the future of the field.

The 1998 Planning Competition at the AI Planning Systems Conference was the first of its kind. Its goal was to create planning domains that a wide variety of planning researchers could agree on to make comparison among planners more meaningful, measure overall progress in the field, and set up a framework for long-term creation of a repository of problems in a standard notation. A rules committee for the competition was created in 1997 and had long discussions on how the contest should go. One result of these discussions was the pddl notation for planning domains. This notation was used to set up a set of planning problems and get a modest problem repository started. As a result, five planning systems were able to compete when the contest took place in June 1998. All these systems solved problems in the strips framework, with some slight extensions. The attempt to find domains for other forms of planning foundered because of technical and organizational problems. In spite of this problem, the competition achieved its goals partially in that it con-firmed that substantial progress had occurred in some subfields of planning, and it allowed qualitative comparison among different planning algorithms. It is urged that the competition continue to take place and to evolve.

The paper addresses the problem of computing goal orderings, which is one of the longstanding issues in AI planning. It makes two new contributions. First, it formally defines and discusses two different goal orderings, which are called the reasonable and the forced ordering. Both orderings are defined for simple STRIPS operators as well as for more complex ADL operators supporting negation and conditional effects. The complexity of these orderings is investigated and their practical relevance is discussed. Secondly, two different methods to compute reasonable goal orderings are developed. One of them is based on planning graphs, while the other investigates the set of actions directly. Finally, it is shown how the ordering relations, which have been derived for a given set of goals G, can be used to compute a so-called goal agenda that divides G into an ordered set of subgoals. Any planner can then, in principle, use the goal agenda to plan for increasing sets of subgoals. This can lead to an exponential complexity reduction, as the solution to a complex planning problem is found by solving easier subproblems. Since only a polynomial overhead is caused by the goal agenda computation, a potential exists to dramatically speed up planning algorithms as we demonstrate in the empirical evaluation, where we use this method in the IPP planner.

The recent approaches of extending the GRAPHPLAN algorithm to handle more expressive planning formalisms raise the question of what the formal meaning of ``expressive power'' is. We formalize the intuition that expressive power is a measure of how concisely planning domains and plans can be expressed in a particular formalism by introducing the notion of ``compilation schemes'' between planning formalisms. Using this notion, we analyze the expressiveness of a large family of propositional planning formalisms, ranging from basic STRIPS to a formalism with conditional effects, partial state specifications, and propositional formulae in the preconditions. One of the results is that conditional effects cannot be compiled away if plan size should grow only linearly but can be compiled away if we allow for polynomial growth of the resulting plans. This result confirms that the recently proposed extensions to the GRAPHPLAN algorithm concerning conditional effects are optimal with respect to the ``compilability'' framework. Another result is that general propositional formulae cannot be compiled into conditional effects if the plan size should be preserved linearly. This implies that allowing general propositional formulae in preconditions and effect conditions adds another level of difficulty in generating a plan.

The AAAI-99 Workshop Program (a part of the sixteenth national conference on artificial intelligence) was held in Orlando, Florida. The program included 16 workshops covering a wide range of topics in AI. Each workshop was limited to approximately 25 to 50 participants. Participation was by invitation from the workshop organizers. The workshops were Agent-Based Systems in the Business Context, Agents' Conflicts, Artificial Intelligence for Distributed Information Networking, Artificial Intelligence for Electronic Commerce, Computation with Neural Systems Workshop, Configuration, Data Mining with Evolutionary Algorithms: Research Directions (Jointly sponsored by GECCO-99), Environmental Decision Support Systems and Artificial Intelligence, Exploring Synergies of Knowledge Management and Case-Based Reasoning, Intelligent Information Systems, Intelligent Software Engineering, Machine Learning for Information Extraction, Mixed-Initiative Intelligence, Negotiation: Settling Conflicts and Identifying Opportunities, Ontology Management, and Reasoning in Context for AI Applications.

We introduce a temporal model for reasoning on disjunctive metric constraints on intervals and time points in temporal contexts. This temporal model is composed of a labeled temporal algebra and its reasoning algorithms. The labeled temporal algebra defines labeled disjunctive metric point-based constraints, where each disjunct in each input disjunctive constraint is univocally associated to a label. Reasoning algorithms manage labeled constraints, associated label lists, and sets of mutually inconsistent disjuncts. These algorithms guarantee consistency and obtain a minimal network. Additionally, constraints can be organized in a hierarchy of alternative temporal contexts. Therefore, we can reason on context-dependent disjunctive metric constraints on intervals and points. Moreover, the model is able to represent non-binary constraints, such that logical dependencies on disjuncts in constraints can be handled. The computational cost of reasoning algorithms is exponential in accordance with the underlying problem complexity, although some improvements are proposed.

This paper reviews the connections between Graphplan's planning-graph and the dynamic constraint satisfaction problem and motivates the need for adapting CSP search techniques to the Graphplan algorithm. It then describes how explanation based learning, dependency directed backtracking, dynamic variable ordering, forward checking, sticky values and random-restart search strategies can be adapted to Graphplan. Empirical results are provided to demonstrate that these augmentations improve Graphplan's performance significantly (up to 1000x speedups) on several benchmark problems. Special attention is paid to the explanation-based learning and dependency directed backtracking techniques as they are empirically found to be most useful in improving the performance of Graphplan.

Distributed SIPE (DSIPE) is a distributed planning system that provides decision support to human planners in a collaborative planning environment. The key contributions of our research on DSIPE are (1) constraint-based, consistent local views of the global plan that give each planner a view of how other planners' subplans relate to their local planning decisions; (2) methods for automatically identifying and sharing potentially relevant information among distributed planning agents; and (3) techniques for merging subplans that leverage the shared subplan structure to generate a complete, final plan. DSIPE is a fully implemented system and has been demonstrated to end users in the maritime (United States Navy and United States Marine Corps) planning community.

All regular members is available by writing to ncai@aaai.