My biggest concern is with the way that \epsilon_1 behaves depending on n. Firstly, it seems the choice of the value -n for \rho is arbitrary (with the choice being repercuted in the definition of \epsilon), and this should be discussed more clearly in the text. Next, it is not clear to me why the choice \rho -n is the best. Does it optimize \epsilon_1 in some way? Furthermore, as n tends to \infty, it seems that \epsilon_1 does NOT tend to infinity.

We consider the problem of reaching a propositional goal condition in fully-observable nondeterministic (FOND) planning under a general class of fairness assumptions that are given explicitly. The fairness assumptions are of the form A/B and say that state trajectories that contain infinite occurrences of an action a from A in a state s and finite occurrence of actions from B, must also contain infinite occurrences of action a in s followed by each one of its possible outcomes. The infinite trajectories that violate this condition are deemed as unfair, and the solutions are policies for which all the fair trajectories reach a goal state. We show that strong and strong-cyclic FOND planning, as well as QNP planning, a planning model introduced recently for generalized planning, are all special cases of FOND planning with fairness assumptions of this form which can also be combined. FOND+ planning, as this form of planning is called, combines the syntax of FOND planning with some of the versatility of LTL for expressing fairness constraints. A sound and complete FOND+ planner is implemented by reducing FOND+ planning to answer set programs, and its performance is evaluated in comparison with FOND and QNP planners, and LTL synthesis tools. Two other FOND+ planners are introduced as well which are more scalable but are not complete.  

We consider the problem of reaching a propositional goal condition in fully-observable non-deterministic (FOND) planning under a general class of fairness assumptions that are given explicitly. The fairness assumptions are of the form A/B and say that state trajectories that contain infinite occurrences of an action a from A in a state s and finite occurrence of actions from B, must also contain infinite occurrences of action a in s followed by each one of its possible outcomes. The infinite trajectories that violate this condition are deemed as unfair, and the solutions are policies for which all the fair trajectories reach a goal state. We show that strong and strong-cyclic FOND planning, as well as QNP planning, a planning model introduced recently for generalized planning, are all special cases of FOND planning with fairness assumptions of this form which can also be combined. FOND+ planning, as this form of planning is called, combines the syntax of FOND planning with some of the versatility of LTL for expressing fairness constraints. A new planner is implemented by reducing FOND+ planning to answer set programs, and the performance of the planner is evaluated in comparison with FOND and QNP planners, and LTL synthesis tools.

We contribute to recent efforts in relating two approaches to automatic synthesis, namely, automated planning and discrete reactive synthesis. First, we develop a declarative characterization of the standard "fairness" assumption on environments in non-deterministic planning, and show that strong-cyclic plans are correct solution concepts for fair environments. This complements, and arguably completes, the existing foundational work on non-deterministic planning, which focuses on characterizing (and computing) plans enjoying special "structural" properties, namely loopy but closed policy structures. Second, we provide an encoding suitable for reactive synthesis that avoids the naive exponential state space blowup. To do so, special care has to be taken to specify the fairness assumption on the environment in a succinct manner.