Domain-independent heuristics have long been a cornerstone of AI planning, offering general solutions applicable across a wide range of tasks without requiring domain-specific engineering. However, the advent of large language models (LLMs) presents an opportunity to generate heuristics tailored to specific planning problems, potentially challenging the necessity of domain independence as a strict design principle. In this paper, we explore the use of LLMs to automatically derive planning heuristics from task descriptions represented as successor generators and goal tests written in general purpose programming language. We investigate the trade-offs between domain-specific LLM-generated heuristics and traditional domain-independent methods in terms of computational efficiency and explainability. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs can create heuristics that achieve state-of-the-art performance on some standard IPC domains, as well as their ability to solve problems that lack an adequate Planning Domain Definition Language ({\sc pddl}) representation. We discuss whether these results signify a paradigm shift and how they can complement existing approaches.

Automated decision-making is a fundamental topic that spans multiple sub-disciplines in AI: reinforcement learning (RL), AI planning (AP), foundation models, and operations research, among others. Despite recent efforts to ``bridge the gaps'' between these communities, there remain many insights that have not yet transcended the boundaries. Our goal in this paper is to provide a brief and non-exhaustive primer on ideas well-known in AP, but less so in other sub-disciplines. We do so by introducing the classical AP problem and representation, and extensions that handle uncertainty and time through the Markov Decision Process formalism. Next, we survey state-of-the-art techniques and ideas for solving AP problems, focusing on their ability to exploit problem structure. Lastly, we cover subfields within AP for learning structure from unstructured inputs and learning to generalise to unseen scenarios and situations.

In AI planning, it is common to distinguish between planning domains and problem instances, where a "domain" is generally understood as a set of related problem instances. This distinction is important, for example, in generalised planning, which aims to find a single, general plan or policy that solves all instances of a given domain. In PDDL, domains and problem instances are clearly separated: the domain defines the types, predicate symbols, and action schemata, while the problem instance specifies the concrete set of (typed) objects, the initial state, and the goal condition. In this paper, we show that it is quite easy to define a PDDL domain such that any propositional planning problem instance, from any domain, becomes an instance of this (lifted) "universal" domain. We construct different formulations of the universal domain, and discuss their implications for the complexity of lifted domain-dependent or generalised planning.

Despite being successful in board games and reinforcement learning (RL), UCT, a Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) combined with UCB1 Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB), has had limited success in domain-independent planning until recently. Previous work showed that UCB1, designed for $[0,1]$-bounded rewards, is not appropriate for estimating the distance-to-go which are potentially unbounded in $\mathbb{R}$, such as heuristic functions used in classical planning, then proposed combining MCTS with MABs designed for Gaussian reward distributions and successfully improved the performance. In this paper, we further sharpen our understanding of ideal bandits for planning tasks. Existing work has two issues: First, while Gaussian MABs no longer over-specify the distances as $h\in [0,1]$, they under-specify them as $h\in [-\infty,\infty]$ while they are non-negative and can be further bounded in some cases. Second, there is no theoretical justifications for Full-Bellman backup (Schulte & Keller, 2014) that backpropagates minimum/maximum of samples. We identified \emph{extreme value} statistics as a theoretical framework that resolves both issues at once and propose two bandits, UCB1-Uniform/Power, and apply them to MCTS for classical planning. We formally prove their regret bounds and empirically demonstrate their performance in classical planning.

One key decision for heuristic search algorithms is how to balance exploration and exploitation. In classical planning, novelty search has come out as the most successful approach in this respect. The idea is to favor states that contain previously unseen facts when searching for a plan. This is done by maintaining a record of the tuples of facts observed in previous states. Then the novelty of a state is the size of the smallest previously unseen tuple. The most successful version of novelty search is best-first width search (BFWS), which combines novelty measures with heuristic estimates. An orthogonal approach to balance exploration-exploitation is to use several open-lists. These open-lists are ordered using different heuristic estimates, which diversify the information used in the search. The search algorithm then alternates between these open-lists, trying to exploit these different estimates. This is the approach used by LAMA, a classical planner that, a decade after its release, is still considered state-of-the-art in agile planning. In this paper, we study how to combine LAMA and BFWS. We show that simply adding the strongest open-list used in BFWS to LAMA harms performance. However, we show that combining only parts of each planner leads to a new state-of-the-art agile planner.

Heuristic search is a powerful approach for solving planning problems and numeric planning is no exception. In this paper, we boost the performance of heuristic search for numeric planning with various powerful techniques orthogonal to improving heuristic informedness: numeric novelty heuristics, the Manhattan distance heuristic, and exploring the use of multi-queue search and portfolios for combining heuristics.

The ability to generate multiple plans is central to using planning in real-life applications. Top-quality planners generate sets of such top-cost plans, allowing flexibility in determining equivalent ones. In terms of the order between actions in a plan, the literature only considers two extremes -- either all orders are important, making each plan unique, or all orders are unimportant, treating two plans differing only in the order of actions as equivalent. To allow flexibility in selecting important orders, we propose specifying a subset of actions the orders between which are important, interpolating between the top-quality and unordered top-quality planning problems. We explore the ways of adapting partial order reduction search pruning techniques to address this new computational problem and present experimental evaluations demonstrating the benefits of exploiting such techniques in this setting.

Rubik's Cube (RC) is a well-known and computationally challenging puzzle that has motivated AI researchers to explore efficient alternative representations and problem-solving methods. The ideal situation for planning here is that a problem be solved optimally and efficiently represented in a standard notation using a general-purpose solver and heuristics. The fastest solver today for RC is DeepCubeA with a custom representation, and another approach is with Scorpion planner with State-Action-Space+ (SAS+) representation. In this paper, we present the first RC representation in the popular PDDL language so that the domain becomes more accessible to PDDL planners, competitions, and knowledge engineering tools, and is more human-readable. We then bridge across existing approaches and compare performance. We find that in one comparable experiment, DeepCubeA (trained with 12 RC actions) solves all problems with varying complexities, albeit only 78.5% are optimal plans. For the same problem set, Scorpion with SAS+ representation and pattern database heuristics solves 61.50% problems optimally, while FastDownward with PDDL representation and FF heuristic solves 56.50% problems, out of which 79.64% of the plans generated were optimal. Our study provides valuable insights into the trade-offs between representational choice and plan optimality that can help researchers design future strategies for challenging domains combining general-purpose solving methods (planning, reinforcement learning), heuristics, and representations (standard or custom).

Balancing exploration and exploitation has been an important problem in both game tree search and automated planning. However, while the problem has been extensively analyzed within the Multi-Armed Bandit (MAB) literature, the planning community has had limited success when attempting to apply those results. We show that a more detailed theoretical understanding of MAB literature helps improve existing planning algorithms that are based on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) / Trial Based Heuristic Tree Search (THTS). In particular, THTS uses UCB1 MAB algorithms in an ad hoc manner, as UCB1's theoretical requirement of fixed bounded support reward distributions is not satisfied within heuristic search for classical planning. The core issue lies in UCB1's lack of adaptations to the different scales of the rewards. We propose GreedyUCT-Normal, a MCTS/THTS algorithm with UCB1-Normal bandit for agile classical planning, which handles distributions with different scales by taking the reward variance into consideration, and resulted in an improved algorithmic performance (more plans found with less node expansions) that outperforms Greedy Best First Search and existing MCTS/THTS-based algorithms (GreedyUCT,GreedyUCT*).

This paper compares the performance of various data processing methods in terms of predictive performance for structured data. This paper also seeks to identify and recommend preprocessing methodologies for tree-based binary classification models, with a focus on eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) models. Three data sets of various structures, interactions, and complexity were constructed, which were supplemented by a real-world data set from the Lending Club. We compare several methods for feature selection, categorical handling, and null imputation. Performance is assessed using relative comparisons among the chosen methodologies, including model prediction variability. This paper is presented by the three groups of preprocessing methodologies, with each section consisting of generalized observations. Each observation is accompanied by a recommendation of one or more preferred methodologies. Among feature selection methods, permutation-based feature importance, regularization, and XGBoost's feature importance by weight are not recommended. The correlation coefficient reduction also shows inferior performance. Instead, XGBoost importance by gain shows the most consistency and highest caliber of performance. Categorical featuring encoding methods show greater discrimination in performance among data set structures. While there was no universal "best" method, frequency encoding showed the greatest performance for the most complex data sets (Lending Club), but had the poorest performance for all synthetic (i.e., simpler) data sets. Finally, missing indicator imputation dominated in terms of performance among imputation methods, whereas tree imputation showed extremely poor and highly variable model performance.