This paper studies how a domain-independent planner and combinatorial search can be employed to play Angry Birds, a well established AI challenge problem. To model the game, we use PDDL+, a planning language for mixed discrete/continuous domains that supports durative processes and exogenous events. The paper describes the model and identifies key design decisions that reduce the problem complexity. In addition, we propose several domain-specific enhancements including heuristics and a search technique similar to preferred operators. Together, they alleviate the complexity of combinatorial search. We evaluate our approach by comparing its performance with dedicated domain-specific solvers on a range of Angry Birds levels. The results show that our performance is on par with these domain-specific approaches in most levels, even without using our domain-specific search enhancements.

PDDL+ is an extension of PDDL2.1 which incorporates fully-featured autonomous processes and allows for better modelling of mixed discrete-continuous domains. Unlike PDDL2.1, PDDL+ lacks a logical semantics, relying instead on state-transitional semantics enriched with hybrid automata semantics for the continuous states. This complex semantics makes analysis and comparisons to other action formalisms difficult. In this paper, we propose a natural extension of Reiter's situation calculus theories inspired by hybrid automata. The kinship between PDDL+ and hybrid automata allows us to develop a direct mapping between PDDL+ and situation calculus, thereby supplying PDDL+ with a logical semantics and the situation calculus with a modern way of representing autonomous processes. We outline the potential benefits of the mapping by suggesting a new approach to effective planning in PDDL+.

Recently, a new language AC(C) was proposed to integrate answer set programming (ASP) and constraint logic programming (CLP). In this paper, we show that temporally expressive planning problems in PDDL2.1 can be translated into AC(C) and solved using AC(C) solvers. Compared with existing approaches, the new approach puts less restrictions on the planning problems and is easy to extend with new features like PDDL axioms. It can also leverage the inference engine for AC(C) which has the potential to exploit the best reasoning mechanisms developed in the ASP, SAT and CP communities.

We present a technique for automatically extracting temporal mutual exclusion invariants from PDDL2.2 planning instances. Our technique builds on other approaches to invariant synthesis presented in the literature, but departs from their limited focus on instantaneous discrete actions by addressing temporal and numeric domains. To deal with time, we formulate invariance conditions that account for both the entire structure of the operators (including the conditions, rather than just the effects) and the possible interactions between operators.

We provide an overview of the organization and results of the deterministic part of the 4th International Planning Competition, i.e., of the part concerned with evaluating systems doing deterministic planning. IPC-4 attracted even more competing systems than its already large predecessors, and the competition event was revised in several important respects. After giving an introduction to the IPC, we briefly explain the main differences between the deterministic part of IPC-4 and its predecessors. We then introduce formally the language used, called PDDL2.2 that extends PDDL2.1 by derived predicates and timed initial literals. We list the competing systems and overview the results of the competition. The entire set of data is far too large to be presented in full. We provide a detailed summary; the complete data is available in an online appendix. We explain how we awarded the competition prizes.

PDDL2.1 was designed to push the envelope of what planning algorithms can do, and it has succeeded. It adds two important features: durative actions, which take time (and may have continuous effects); and objective functions for measuring the quality of plans. The concept of durative actions is flawed; and the treatment of their semantics reveals too strong an attachment to the way many contemporary planners work. Future PDDL innovators should focus on producing a clean semantics for additions to the language, and let planner implementers worry about coupling their algorithms to problems expressed in the latest version of the language. All things considered, Fox and Long have done a terrific job producing PDDL2.1.

The addition of durative actions to PDDL2.1 sparked some controversy. Fox and Long argued that actions should be considered as instantaneous, but can start and stop processes. Ultimately, a limited notion of durative actions was incorporated into the language. I argue that this notion is still impoverished, and that the underlying philosophical position of regarding durative actions as being a shorthand for a start action, process, and stop action ignores the realities of modelling and execution for complex systems.

Combining Answer Set Programming (ASP) and Constraint Logic Programming (CLP) can create a more powerful language for knowledge representation and reasoning. The language AC(C) is designed to integrate ASP and CLP. Compared with existing integration of ASP and CSP, AC(C) allows representing user-defined constraints. Such integration provides great power for applications requiring logical reasoning involving constraints, e.g., temporal planning. In AC(C), user-defined and primitive constraints can be solved by a CLP inference engine while the logical reasoning over those constraints and regular logic literals is solved by an ASP inference engine (i.e., solver). My PhD work includes improving the language AC(C), implementing its faster inference engine and investigating how effective the new system can be used to solve a challenging application, temporal planning.

The addition of durative actions to PDDL2.1 sparked some controversy. Fox and Long argued that actions should be considered as instantaneous, but can start and stop processes. Ultimately, a limited notion of durative actions was incorporated into the language. I argue that this notion is still impoverished, and that the underlying philosophical position of regarding durative actions as being a shorthand for a start action, process, and stop action ignores the realities of modelling and execution for complex systems.

PDDL2.1 was designed to push the envelope of what planning algorithms can do, and it has succeeded. It adds two important features: durative actions, which take time (and may have continuous effects); and objective functions for measuring the quality of plans. The concept of durative actions is flawed; and the treatment of their semantics reveals too strong an attachment to the way many contemporary planners work. Future PDDL innovators should focus on producing a clean semantics for additions to the language, and let planner implementers worry about coupling their algorithms to problems expressed in the latest version of the language. All things considered, Fox and Long have done a terrific job producing PDDL2.1.