Combinatorial methods for learning general policies that solve large collections of planning problems have been recently developed. One of their strengths, in relation to deep learning approaches, is that the resulting policies can be understood and shown to be correct. A weakness is that the methods do not scale up and learn only from small training instances and feature pools that contain a few hundreds of states and features at most. In this work, we propose a new symbolic method for learning policies based on the generalization of sampled plans that ensures structural termination and hence acyclicity. The proposed learning approach is not based on SA T/ASP, as previous symbolic methods, but on a hitting set algorithm that can effectively handle problems with millions of states, and pools with hundreds of thousands of features. The formal properties of the approach are analyzed, and its scalability is tested on a number of benchmarks.

In classical planning and conformant planning, it is assumed that there are finitely many named objects given in advance, and only they can participate in actions and in fluents. This is the Domain Closure Assumption (DCA). However, there are practical planning problems where the set of objects changes dynamically as actions are performed; e.g., new objects can be created, old objects can be destroyed. We formulate the planning problem in first-order logic, assume an initial theory is a finite consistent set of fluent literals, discuss when this guarantees that in every situation there are only finitely many possible actions, impose a finite integer bound on the length of the plan, and propose to organize search over sequences of actions that are grounded at planning time. We show the soundness and completeness of our approach. It can be used to solve the bounded planning problems without DCA that belong to the intersection of sequential generalized planning (without sensing actions) and conformant planning, restricted to the case without the disjunction over fluent literals. We discuss a proof-of-the-concept implementation of our planner.

Generalized planning is concerned with how to find a single plan to solve multiple similar planning instances. Abstractions are widely used for solving generalized planning, and QNP (qualitative numeric planning) is a popular abstract model. Recently, Cui et al. showed that a plan solves a sound and complete abstraction of a generalized planning problem if and only if the refined plan solves the original problem. However, existing work on automatic abstraction for generalized planning can hardly guarantee soundness let alone completeness. In this paper, we propose an automatic sound and complete abstraction method for generalized planning with baggable types. We use a variant of QNP, called bounded QNP (BQNP), where integer variables are increased or decreased by only one. Since BQNP is undecidable, we propose and implement a sound but incomplete solver for BQNP. We present an automatic method to abstract a BQNP problem from a classical planning instance with baggable types. The basic idea for abstraction is to introduce a counter for each bag of indistinguishable tuples of objects. We define a class of domains called proper baggable domains, and show that for such domains, the BQNP problem got by our automatic method is a sound and complete abstraction for a generalized planning problem whose instances share the same bags with the given instance but the sizes of the bags might be different. Thus, the refined plan of a solution to the BQNP problem is a solution to the generalized planning problem. Finally, we implement our abstraction method and experiments on a number of domains demonstrate the promise of our approach.

Goal instructions for autonomous AI agents cannot assume that objects have unique names. Instead, objects in goals must be referred to by providing suitable descriptions. However, this raises problems in both classical planning and generalized planning. The standard approach to handling existentially quantified goals in classical planning involves compiling them into a DNF formula that encodes all possible variable bindings and adding dummy actions to map each DNF term into the new, dummy goal. This preprocessing is exponential in the number of variables. In generalized planning, the problem is different: even if general policies can deal with any initial situation and goal, executing a general policy requires the goal to be grounded to define a value for the policy features. The problem of grounding goals, namely finding the objects to bind the goal variables, is subtle: it is a generalization of classical planning, which is a special case when there are no goal variables to bind, and constraint reasoning, which is a special case when there are no actions. In this work, we address the goal grounding problem with a novel supervised learning approach. A GNN architecture, trained to predict the cost of partially quantified goals over small domain instances is tested on larger instances involving more objects and different quantified goals. The proposed architecture is evaluated experimentally over several planning domains where generalization is tested along several dimensions including the number of goal variables and objects that can bind such variables. The scope of the approach is also discussed in light of the known relationship between GNNs and C2 logics.

State symmetries play an important role in planning and generalized planning. In the first case, state symmetries can be used to reduce the size of the search; in the second, to reduce the size of the training set. In the case of general planning, however, it is also critical to distinguish non-symmetric states, i.e., states that represent non-isomorphic relational structures. However, while the language of first-order logic distinguishes non-symmetric states, the languages and architectures used to represent and learn general policies do not. In particular, recent approaches for learning general policies use state features derived from description logics or learned via graph neural networks (GNNs) that are known to be limited by the expressive power of C_2, first-order logic with two variables and counting. In this work, we address the problem of detecting symmetries in planning and generalized planning and use the results to assess the expressive requirements for learning general policies over various planning domains. For this, we map planning states to plain graphs, run off-the-shelf algorithms to determine whether two states are isomorphic with respect to the goal, and run coloring algorithms to determine if C_2 features computed logically or via GNNs distinguish non-isomorphic states. Symmetry detection results in more effective learning, while the failure to detect non-symmetries prevents general policies from being learned at all in certain domains.

The Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) is a general artificial intelligence benchmark that poses difficulties for pure machine learning methods due to its requirement for fluid intelligence with a focus on reasoning and abstraction. In this work, we introduce an ARC solver, Generalized Planning for Abstract Reasoning (GPAR). It casts an ARC problem as a generalized planning (GP) problem, where a solution is formalized as a planning program with pointers. We express each ARC problem using the standard Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) coupled with external functions representing object-centric abstractions. We show how to scale up GP solvers via domain knowledge specific to ARC in the form of restrictions over the actions model, predicates, arguments and valid structure of planning programs. Our experiments demonstrate that GPAR outperforms the state-of-the-art solvers on the object-centric tasks of the ARC, showing the effectiveness of GP and the expressiveness of PDDL to model ARC problems. The challenges provided by the ARC benchmark motivate research to advance existing GP solvers and understand new relations with other planning computational models. Code is available at github.com/you68681/GPAR.

Recent work has considered whether large language models (LLMs) can function as planners: given a task, generate a plan. We investigate whether LLMs can serve as generalized planners: given a domain and training tasks, generate a program that efficiently produces plans for other tasks in the domain. In particular, we consider PDDL domains and use GPT-4 to synthesize Python programs. We also consider (1) Chain-of-Thought (CoT) summarization, where the LLM is prompted to summarize the domain and propose a strategy in words before synthesizing the program; and (2) automated debugging, where the program is validated with respect to the training tasks, and in case of errors, the LLM is re-prompted with four types of feedback. We evaluate this approach in seven PDDL domains and compare it to four ablations and four baselines. Overall, we find that GPT-4 is a surprisingly powerful generalized planner. We also conclude that automated debugging is very important, that CoT summarization has non-uniform impact, that GPT-4 is far superior to GPT-3.5, and that just two training tasks are often sufficient for strong generalization.

This paper presents new methods for analyzing and evaluating generalized plans that can solve broad classes of related planning problems. Although synthesis and learning of generalized plans has been a longstanding goal in AI, it remains challenging due to fundamental gaps in methods for analyzing the scope and utility of a given generalized plan. This paper addresses these gaps by developing a new conceptual framework along with proof techniques and algorithmic processes for assessing termination and goal-reachability related properties of generalized plans. We build upon classic results from graph theory to decompose generalized plans into smaller components that are then used to derive hierarchical termination arguments. These methods can be used to determine the utility of a given generalized plan, as well as to guide the synthesis and learning processes for generalized plans. We present theoretical as well as empirical results illustrating the scope of this new approach. Our analysis shows that this approach significantly extends the class of generalized plans that can be assessed automatically, thereby reducing barriers in the synthesis and learning of reliable generalized plans.

It has been shown recently that successful techniques in classical planning, such as goal-oriented heuristics and landmarks, can improve the ability to compute planning programs for generalized planning (GP) problems. In this work, we introduce the notion of action novelty rank, which computes novelty with respect to a planning program, and propose novelty-based generalized planning solvers, which prune a newly generated planning program if its most frequent action repetition is greater than a given bound $v$, implemented by novelty-based best-first search BFS($v$) and its progressive variant PGP($v$). Besides, we introduce lifted helpful actions in GP derived from action schemes, and propose new evaluation functions and structural program restrictions to scale up the search. Our experiments show that the new algorithms BFS($v$) and PGP($v$) outperform the state-of-the-art in GP over the standard generalized planning benchmarks. Practical findings on the above-mentioned methods in generalized planning are briefly discussed.

This paper presents new methods for analyzing and evaluating generalized plans that can solve broad classes of related planning problems. Although synthesis and learning of generalized plans has been a longstanding goal in AI, it remains challenging due to fundamental gaps in methods for analyzing the scope and utility of a given generalized plan. This paper addresses these gaps by developing a new conceptual framework along with proof techniques and algorithmic processes for assessing termination and goal-reachability related properties of generalized plans. We build upon classic results from graph theory to decompose generalized plans into smaller components that are then used to derive hierarchical termination arguments. These methods can be used to determine the utility of a given generalized plan, as well as to guide the synthesis and learning processes for generalized plans. We present theoretical as well as empirical results illustrating the scope of this new approach. Our analysis shows that this approach significantly extends the class of generalized plans that can be assessed automatically, thereby reducing barriers in the synthesis and learning of reliable generalized plans.