These are notes for lectures presented at the University of Stuttgart that provide an introduction to key concepts and techniques in AI Planning. Artificial Intelligence Planning, also known as Automated Planning, emerged somewhere in 1966 from the need to give autonomy to a wheeled robot. Since then, it has evolved into a flourishing research and development discipline, often associated with scheduling. Over the decades, various approaches to planning have been developed with characteristics that make them appropriate for specific tasks and applications. Most approaches represent the world as a state within a state transition system; then the planning problem becomes that of searching a path in the state space from the current state to one which satisfies the goals of the user. The notes begin by introducing the state model and move on to exploring classical planning, the foundational form of planning, and present fundamental algorithms for solving such problems. Subsequently, we examine planning as a constraint satisfaction problem, outlining the mapping process and describing an approach to solve such problems. The most extensive section is dedicated to Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planning, one of the most widely used and powerful planning techniques in the field. The lecture notes end with a bonus chapter on the Planning Domain Definition (PDDL) Language, the de facto standard syntax for representing non-hierarchical planning problems.

Width-based algorithms search for solutions through a general definition of state novelty. These algorithms have been shown to result in state-of-the-art performance in classical planning, and have been successfully applied to model-based and model-free settings where the dynamics of the problem are given through simulation engines. Width-based algorithms performance is understood theoretically through the notion of planning width, providing polynomial guarantees on their runtime and memory consumption. To facilitate synergies across research communities, this paper summarizes the area of width-based planning, and surveys current and future research directions.

In human-aware planning, a planning agent may need to provide an explanation to a human user on why its plan is optimal. A popular approach to do this is called model reconciliation, where the agent tries to reconcile the differences in its model and the human's model such that the plan is also optimal in the human's model. In this paper, we present a logic-based framework for model reconciliation that extends beyond the realm of planning. More specifically, given a knowledge base $KB_1$ entailing a formula $\varphi$ and a second knowledge base $KB_2$ not entailing it, model reconciliation seeks an explanation, in the form of a cardinality-minimal subset of $KB_1$, whose integration into $KB_2$ makes the entailment possible. Our approach, based on ideas originating in the context of analysis of inconsistencies, exploits the existing hitting set duality between minimal correction sets (MCSes) and minimal unsatisfiable sets (MUSes) in order to identify an appropriate explanation. However, differently from those works targeting inconsistent formulas, which assume a single knowledge base, MCSes and MUSes are computed over two distinct knowledge bases. We conclude our paper with an empirical evaluation of the newly introduced approach on planning instances, where we show how it outperforms an existing state-of-the-art solver, and generic non-planning instances from recent SAT competitions, for which no other solver exists.

Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF) deals with the problem of finding collision-free paths for a set of agents, where each agent wants to move from its start location to its goal location on a shared graph. The paper addresses the question of how to model MAPF as a classical planning problem, specifically, how to encode various collision constraints. Several models in the PDDL modeling language are proposed and empirically compared.

Explainable planning is widely accepted as a prerequisite for autonomous agents to successfully work with humans. While there has been a lot of research on generating explanations of solutions to planning problems, explaining the absence of solutions remains an open and under-studied problem, even though such situations can be the hardest to understand or debug. In this paper, we show that hierarchical abstractions can be used to efficiently generate reasons for unsolvability of planning problems. In contrast to related work on computing certificates of unsolvability, we show that these methods can generate compact, human-understandable reasons for unsolvability. Empirical analysis and user studies show the validity of our methods as well as their computational efficacy on a number of benchmark planning domains.

Finite State Controllers (FSCs) are an effective way to compactly represent sequential plans. By imposing appropriate conditions on transitions, FSCs can also represent generalized plans (plans that solve a range of planning problems from a given domain). In this paper we introduce the concept of hierarchical FSCs for planning by allowing controllers to call other controllers. This call mechanism allows hierarchical FSCs to represent generalized plans more compactly than individual FSCs, to compute controllers in a modular fashion or even more, to compute recursive controllers. The paper introduces a classical planning compilation for computing hierarchical FSCs that solve challenging generalized planning tasks. The compilation takes as input a finite set of classical planning problems from a given domain. The output of the compilation is a single classical planning problem whose solution induces: (1) a hierarchical FSC and (2), the corresponding validation of that controller on the input classical planning problems.

First, it is a brain dump: too long, epsilon-baked, and unpolished. Second, it is not obviously relevant to the topic of this site. Third, parts are more technical than most readers would want. However, a quick, bad post may be better than none. This post was prompted by discussions about Bayesianism and the LessWrong rationalist community, with Scott Alexander, Catharine G. Evans, muflax, and St. Rev. (among others). They are each brilliant, quirky, articulate, and fascinating; consider following them online! They might disagree with much of this post, though, and are not implicated in its defects.] This site concerns ways of thinking about some particularly important things: purpose, self, ethics, authority, and meaning, for instance. My aim is to point out common mistakes in thinking about those things, and how to do better. I enjoy thinking about thinking. That's one reason I spent a dozen years in artificial intelligence research. To make a computer think, you'd need to understand how you think. So AI research is a way of thinking about thinking that forces you to be specific. It calls your bluff if you think you understand thinking, but don't. I thought a lot about how to do AI. 1 In 1988, I put together "How to do research at the MIT AI Lab," a guide for graduate students. Although I edited it, it was a collaboration of many people. There are now many similar guides, some of them better, but this was the first.

The main focus of our work is the use of classical planning algorithms in service of more complex problems of planning under uncertainty. In particular, we are exploring compilation techniques that allow us to reduce some probabilistic planning problems into variants of classical planning, such as metric planning,resource-bounded planning, and cost-bounded suboptimal planning. Currently, our initial work focuses on \emph{conformant probabilistic planning}. We intend toimprove our current methods by improving our compilation methods, but also by improving the ability of current planners to handle the special features ofour compiled problems. Then, we hope to extend these techniques to handle more complex probabilistic settings, such as problems with stochastic actions andpartial observability.

Replanning via determinization is a recent, popular approach for online planning in MDPs. In this paper we adapt this idea to classical, non-stochastic domains with partial information and sensing actions, presenting a new planner: SDR (Sample, Determinize, Replan). At each step we generate a solution plan to a classical planning problem induced by the original problem. We execute this plan as long as it is safe to do so. When this is no longer the case, we replan. The classical planning problem we generate is based on the translation-based approach for conformant planning introduced by Palacios and Geffner. The state of the classical planning problem generated in this approach captures the belief state of the agent in the original problem. Unfortunately, when this method is applied to planning problems with sensing, it yields a non-deterministic planning problem that is typically very large. Our main contribution is the introduction of state sampling techniques for overcoming these two problems. In addition, we introduce a novel, lazy, regression-based method for querying the agent's belief state during run-time. We provide a comprehensive experimental evaluation of the planner, showing that it scales better than the state-of-the-art CLG planner on existing benchmark problems, but also highlighting its weaknesses with new domains. We also discuss its theoretical guarantees.

We describe a new sound and complete method for compiling contingentplanning problems with sensing actions into classical planning.Our method encodes conditional plans within a linear, classical plan.This allows our planner, MPSR, to reason about multiple future outcomes of sensingactions, and makes it less susceptible to dead-ends.MPRS, however, generates very large classical planningproblems. To overcome this, we use an incomplete variantof the method, based on state sampling, within an online replanner. On most current domains, MPSR finds plans faster, although its plans are often longer. But on a new challenging variant of Wumpus with dead-ends,it finds smaller plans, faster, and scales better.