In research of manufacturing systems and autonomous robots, the term capability is used for a machine-interpretable specification of a system function. Approaches in this research area develop information models that capture all information relevant to interpret the requirements, effects and behavior of functions. These approaches are intended to overcome the heterogeneity resulting from the various types of processes and from the large number of different vendors. However, these models and associated methods do not offer solutions for automated process planning, i.e. finding a sequence of individual capabilities required to manufacture a certain product or to accomplish a mission using autonomous robots. Instead, this is a typical task for AI planning approaches, which unfortunately require a high effort to create the respective planning problem descriptions. In this paper, we present an approach that combines these two topics: Starting from a semantic capability model, an AI planning problem is automatically generated. The planning problem is encoded using Satisfiability Modulo Theories and uses an existing solver to find valid capability sequences including required parameter values. The approach also offers possibilities to integrate existing human expertise and to provide explanations for human operators in order to help understand planning decisions.

In human-aware planning systems, a planning agent might need to explain its plan to a human user when that plan appears to be non-feasible or sub-optimal. A popular approach, called model reconciliation, has been proposed as a way to bring the model of the human user closer to the agent’s model. To do so, the agent provides an explanation that can be used to update the model of human such that the agent’s plan is feasible or optimal to the human user. Existing approaches to solve this problem have been based on automated planning methods and have been limited to classical planning problems only. In this paper, we approach the model reconciliation problem from a different perspective, that of knowledge representation and reasoning, and demonstrate that our approach can be applied not only to classical planning problems but also hybrid systems planning problems with durative actions and events/processes. In particular, we propose a logic-based framework for explanation generation, where given a knowledge base KBa (of an agent) and a knowledge base KBh (of a human user), each encoding their knowledge of a planning problem, and that KBa entails a query q (e.g., that a proposed plan of the agent is valid), the goal is to identify an explanation ε ⊆ KBa such that when it is used to update KBh, then the updated KBh also entails q. More specifically, we make the following contributions in this paper: (1) We formally define the notion of logic-based explanations in the context of model reconciliation problems; (2) We introduce a number of cost functions that can be used to reflect preferences between explanations; (3) We present algorithms to compute explanations for both classical planning and hybrid systems planning problems; and (4) We empirically evaluate their performance on such problems. Our empirical results demonstrate that, on classical planning problems, our approach is faster than the state of the art when the explanations are long or when the size of the knowledge base is small (e.g., the plans to be explained are short). They also demonstrate that our approach is efficient for hybrid systems planning problems. Finally, we evaluate the real-world efficacy of explanations generated by our algorithms through a controlled human user study, where we develop a proof-of-concept visualization system and use it as a medium for explanation communication.

Planning in hybrid systems is important for dealing with real-world applications. PDDL supports this representation of domains with mixed discrete and continuous dynamics, and supports events and processes modelling exogenous change. Motivated by numerous SAT-based planning approaches, we propose an approach to PDDL planning through SMT, describing an SMT encoding that captures all the features of the PDDL problem as published by Fox and Long. The encoding can be applied on domains with nonlinear continuous change. We apply this encoding in a simple planning algorithm, demonstrating excellent results on a set of benchmark problems.

In automated planning, the need for explanations arises when there is a mismatch between a proposed plan and the user’s expectation. We frame Explainable AI Planning as an iterative plan exploration process, in which the user asks a succession of contrastive questions that lead to the generation and solution of hypothetical planning problems that are restrictions of the original problem. The object of the exploration is for the user to understand the constraints that govern the original plan and, ultimately, to arrive at a satisfactory plan. We present the results of a user study that demonstrates that when users ask questions about plans, those questions are usually contrastive, i.e. “why A rather than B?”. We use the data from this study to construct a taxonomy of user questions that often arise during plan exploration. Our approach to iterative plan exploration is a process of successive model restriction. Each contrastive user question imposes a set of constraints on the planning problem, leading to the construction of a new hypothetical planning problem as a restriction of the original. Solving this restricted problem results in a plan that can be compared with the original plan, admitting a contrastive explanation. We formally define model-based compilations in PDDL2.1 for each type of constraint derived from a contrastive user question in the taxonomy, and empirically evaluate the compilations in terms of computational complexity. The compilations were implemented as part of an explanation framework supporting iterative model restriction. We demonstrate its benefits in a second user study.

In automated planning, the need for explanations arises when there is a mismatch between a proposed plan and the user's expectation. We frame Explainable AI Planning in the context of the plan negotiation problem, in which a succession of hypothetical planning problems are generated and solved. The object of the negotiation is for the user to understand and ultimately arrive at a satisfactory plan. We present the results of a user study that demonstrates that when users ask questions about plans, those questions are contrastive, i.e. "why A rather than B?". We use the data from this study to construct a taxonomy of user questions that often arise during plan negotiation. We formally define our approach to plan negotiation through model restriction as an iterative process. This approach generates hypothetical problems and contrastive plans by restricting the model through constraints implied by user questions. We formally define model-based compilations in PDDL2.1 of each constraint derived from a user question in the taxonomy, and empirically evaluate the compilations in terms of computational complexity. The compilations were implemented as part of an explanation framework that employs iterative model restriction. We demonstrate its benefits in a second user study.

We present a novel approach for decreasing state uncertainty in planning prior to solving the planning problem. This is done by making predictions about the state based on currently known information, using machine learning techniques. For domains where uncertainty is high, we define an active learning process for identifying which information, once sensed, will best improve the accuracy of predictions. We demonstrate that an agent is able to solve problems with uncertainties in the state with less planning effort compared to standard planning techniques. Moreover, agents can solve problems for which they could not find valid plans without using predictions. Experimental results also demonstrate that using our active learning process for identifying information to be sensed leads to gathering information that improves the prediction process.