Models of Action Concurrency in Temporal Planning

This work compares two actions' concurrency and co-occurrence employed in temporal modeling languages, one with a PDDL-style action modeling languages used by the AI planning community, exclusion mechanism, and another with an explicit and argue that they explain why MILP or SMT have notion of resources, and investigates their seemed unattractive. Specifically, we observe that PDDL 2.1 implications on constraint-based search. The first [Fox and Long, 2003] induces temporal gaps between consecutive mechanism forces temporal gaps in action schedules interdependent actions, and these gaps often induce and have a high performance penalty. The second twice the number of steps in the plans than what is necessary, mechanism avoids the gaps, with dramatically with strong negative performance implications. The gaps are improved performance.