The LM-cut heuristic, both alone and as part of the operator counting framework, represents one of the most successful heuristics for classical planning. In this paper, we generalize LM-cut and its use in operator counting to optimal numeric planning with simple conditions and simple numeric effects, i.e., linear expressions over numeric state variables and actions that increase or decrease such variables by constant quantities. We introduce a variant of hmaxhbd (a previously proposed numeric hmax heuristic) based on the delete-relaxed version of such planning tasks and show that, although inadmissible by itself, our variant yields a numeric version of the classical LM-cut heuristic which is admissible. We classify the three existing families of heuristics for this class of numeric planning tasks and introduce the LM-cut family, proving dominance or incomparability between all pairs of existing max and LM-cut heuristics for numeric planning with simple conditions. Our extensive empirical evaluation shows that the new LM-cut heuristic, both on its own and as part of the operator counting framework, is the state-of-the-art for this class of numeric planning problem.

Multi-agent pathfinding (MAPF) is an NP-hard problem. As such, dense maps may be very hard to solve optimally. In such scenarios, compilation-based approaches, via Boolean satisfiability (SAT) and answer set programming (ASP), have been shown to outperform heuristic-search-based approaches, such as conflict-based search (CBS). In this paper, we propose a new Boolean encoding for MAPF, and show how to implement it in ASP and MaxSAT. A feature that distinguishes our encoding from existing ones is that swap and follow conflicts are encoded using binary clauses, which can be exploited by current conflict-driven clause learning (CDCL) solvers. In addition, the number of clauses used to encode swap and follow conflicts do not depend on the number of agents, allowing us to scale better. For MaxSAT, we study different ways in which we may combine the MSU3 and LSU algorithms for maximum performance. In our experimental evaluation, we used square grids, ranging from 20 x 20 to 50 x 50 cells, and warehouse maps, with a varying number of agents and obstacles. We compared against representative solvers of the state-of-the-art, including the search-based algorithm CBS, the ASP-based solver ASP-MAPF, and the branch-and-cut-and-price hybrid solver, BCP. We observe that the ASP implementation of our encoding, ASP-MAPF2 outperforms other solvers in most of our experiments. The MaxSAT implementation of our encoding, MtMS shows best performance in relatively small warehouse maps when the number of agents is large, which are the instances with closer resemblance to hard puzzle-like problems.

Many interesting search problems can be formulated as bi-objective search problems; for example, transportation problems where both travel distance and time need to be minimized. Multi-objective best-first search algorithms need to maintain the set of undominated paths from the start state to each state to compute a set of paths from a given start state to a given goal state (the Pareto-optimal solutions) such that no path in the set is dominated by another path in the set. Each time they find a new path to a state n, they perform a dominance check to determine whether such a path dominates any of the previously found paths to n. Existing algorithms do not perform these checks efficiently, requiring at least a full iteration over the Open list per check. In this paper, we present the first multi-objective algorithm that performs these checks efficiently. Indeed, Bi-Objective A* (BOA*)—our algorithm—requires constant time to check for dominance. Our experimental evaluation shows that BOA*is orders-of-magnitude faster than state-of-the-art search algorithms, such as NAMOA*, Bi-Objective Dijkstra, and Bidirectional Bi-Objective Dijkstra.

Temporally extended goals are critical to the specification of a diversity of real-world planning problems. Here we examine the problem of non-deterministic planning with temporally extended goals specified in linear temporal logic (LTL), interpreted over either finite or infinite traces. Unlike existing LTL planners, we place no restrictions on our LTL formulae beyond those necessary to distinguish finite from infinite interpretations. We generate plans by compiling LTL temporally extended goals into problem instances described in the Planning Domain Definition Language that are solved by a state-of-the-art fully observable non-deterministic planner. We propose several different compilations based on translations of LTL to (Büchi) alternating or (Büchi) non-deterministic finite state automata, and evaluate various properties of the competing approaches. We address a diverse spectrum of LTL planning problems that, to this point, had not been solvable using AI planning techniques, and do so in a manner that demonstrates highly competitive performance.

The AAAI-12 Workshop program was held Sunday and Monday, July 22–23, 2012 at the Sheraton Centre Toronto Hotel in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The AAAI-12 workshop program included 9 workshops covering a wide range of topics in artificial intelligence. The titles of the workshops were Activity Context Representation: Techniques and Languages, AI for Data Center Management and Cloud Computing, Cognitive Robotics, Grounding Language for Physical Systems, Human Computation, Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization and Recommendation, Multiagent Pathfinding, Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning, Problem Solving Using Classical Planners, Semantic Cities. This article presents short summaries of those events.