1 / 17

State Agnostic Planning Graphs

State Agnostic Planning Graphs. William Cushing Daniel Bryce Arizona State University {william.cushing, dan.bryce}@asu.edu. Special thanks to: Subbarao Kambhampati, David E. Smith, Menkes van den Briel, Romeo Sanchez, J. Benton. p q r 6 7. q t r 5 6. p q r 5 6. r q p 5

elkan
Download Presentation

State Agnostic Planning Graphs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. State Agnostic Planning Graphs William Cushing Daniel Bryce Arizona State University {william.cushing, dan.bryce}@asu.edu Special thanks to: Subbarao Kambhampati, David E. Smith, Menkes van den Briel, Romeo Sanchez, J. Benton

  2. p q r 6 7 q t r 5 6 p q r 5 6 r q p 5 6 p q r s t 5 6 7 p q r s t 6 7 8 q t r s p 5 6 7 r q p s t 5 6 7 Introduction ors ops ops oqs oqt opq opq orq opr opr oqr orp otp oqt oqt oqt o67 o67 o67 o78 o56 o67 o56 o56 1 3 3 5 )=5 h( 1 5 Motivation • Reachability analysis (via Planning Graphs) • Sets of planning graphs are useful • Progression search • Belief-space planning • Replanning • Robustification • Local search • … • …but highly redundant • PGs overlap (duplicate information) • PGs are inflexible (fixed source) • Generalize PG to multiple sources 1 1 1 o12 o12 q 5 2 2 G oG o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 r 5 5 q5 p 5 G G G oG oG oG opq 3 3 3 o34 o34 opr 4 4 p5 r5 o45 p 6 5 5 5 o56 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 p6 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 G oG o23 3 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7

  3. Introduction Overview State Agnostic Graph BuildSAG() ExtractH(A,B) ExtractH(A,B) Reachability Queries Planning Graphs BuildPG(A) Technique: Transform BuildPG(A) into BuildSAG() Labeled Uncertainty Graph [LUG] (Belief) State Agnostic LUG [SALUG] Optimized (Belief) State Agnostic LUG [SLUG] Scratch

  4. Heuristics for belief-space G  1 )=5 h( 3 3 5 1 5 Multiple Graphs 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 G oG o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 G G G oG oG oG 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 G oG o23 3 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 D. Bryce and S. Kambhampati, “Heuristic Guidance Measures for Conformant Planning”, In ICAPS’04, 2004.

  5. Heuristics for belief-space G  1 1 1 o12 o12 1 2 2 G G o23 oG oG 3 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 1 1 1 5 o12 o12 G G G 2 2 oG oG o23 oG 3 5 1 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 G oG o23 5 3 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 Unioned Graphs G oG 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7

  6. Heuristics for belief-space G  1 )=1 h( 3 3 5 1 5 Unioned Graphs G G G oG oG oG 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 o23 3 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7

  7. Heuristics for belief-space G  1 )=5 h( 3 3 5 1 5 Labeled Graph [LUG] G G G oG oG oG 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 D. Bryce, S. Kambhampati, and D. Smith, “Planning in Belief Space with a Labelled Uncertainty Graph”, In AAAI Workshop on Markov Processes, 2004.

  8. Heuristics for belief-space G  1 G G G oG oG oG 3 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 3 4 4 o45 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 1 ^ 3 ^ -5 ^ γ 7 3 ^ 5 ^ -1 ^ γ 1 1 ^ 5 ^ -3 ^ γ 1 ^ 3v5 ^ -3v-5 ^ γ 5 3 ^ 1v5 ^ -1v-5 ^ γ 5 ^ 1v3 ^ -1v-3 ^ γ 1v3 ^ 3v5 ^ 1v5 ^ -1v-3v-5 ^ γ Labeled Graph [LUG] Binary Decision Diagrams Initialize: and/projection Operator: and/preconditions Literal: or/supporters D. Bryce, S. Kambhampati, and D. Smith, “Planning in Belief Space with a Labelled Uncertainty Graph”, In AAAI Workshop on Markov Processes, 2004. γ = “everything else false”

  9. Single graph for progression G G 1 1 1 G G G G oG oG oG oG oG oG 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 o12 o12 o12 o12 2 2 2 2 o23 o23 3 3 3 3 3 3 o34 o34 o34 o34 4 4 4 4 o45 o45 5 5 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 o56 o56 6 6 6 6 o67 o67 3 3 3 7 7 5 5 5 G G G G oG oG oG oG 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o12 o12 o12 o12 2 2 2 2 o23 5 5 5 o23 3 3 3 3 3 3 o34 o34 o34 o34 4 4 4 4 o45 o45 5 5 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 o56 o56 6 6 6 6 o67 o67 7 7 Multiple (Labeled) Graphs D. Bryce, S. Kambhampati, and D. Smith, “Planning Graph Heuristics for Belief Space Search”, ASU CSE TR, 2005.

  10. Single graph for progression G G 1 1 1 1 G G G G oG oG oG oG oG oG 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 o12 o12 o12 o12 2 2 2 2 G G o23 o23 G 3 3 3 3 3 3 o34 o34 o34 o34 4 4 oG oG oG 4 4 o45 o45 5 5 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 o56 o56 6 6 6 6 o67 o67 3 3 3 3 7 7 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 5 5 5 5 o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 G G 5 5 5 G G o56 o56 oG oG oG oG 6 6 1 1 1 1 o67 1 1 1 1 1 1 o12 o12 o12 o12 7 2 2 2 2 o23 5 5 5 5 o23 3 3 3 3 3 3 o34 o34 o34 o34 4 4 4 4 o45 o45 5 5 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 o56 o56 6 6 6 6 o67 o67 7 7 Unioned (Labeled) Graph

  11. Single graph for progression 3 1 1 5 5 3 Sr v Sb Sb v Sg Sr v Sg Sr^Sb^Sg => 1v3 ^ 3v5 ^ 1v5 ^ -1v-3v-5 ^ γ -Sr => 5 ^ 1v3 ^ -1v-3 ^ γ -Sb => 1 ^ 3v5 ^ -3v-5 ^ γ -Sg => 3 ^ 1v5 ^ -1v-5 ^ γ Labeled (Labeled) Graph [SALUG] Introduce labels for beliefs over labels for states G G G oG oG oG 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 W. Cushing and D. Bryce, “State Agnostic Planning Graphs”, In AAAI, 2005.

  12. Single graph for progression Labeled (Labeled) Graph [SALUG] G G G oG oG oG 1 1 1 1 3 o12 o12 2 2 3 o23 3 3 3 5 o34 o34 4 4 o45 1 5 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 W. Cushing and D. Bryce, “State Agnostic Planning Graphs”, In AAAI, 2005.

  13. Optimized single graph 1 3 3 5 1 5 Filtered Unioned (Labeled) Graph [SLUG] Don’t let the name fool you! G G G oG oG oG 1 1 1 o12 o12 2 2 o23 3 3 3 o34 o34 4 4 o45 5 5 5 o56 o56 6 6 o67 7 • Ignore irrelevant labels • Largest LUG == all LUGs W. Cushing and D. Bryce, “State Agnostic Planning Graphs”, In AAAI, 2005.

  14. Empirical Results Belief Space Problems ClassicalProblems Contingent Conformant

  15. Conclusion • Developed general agnosticism (SAG) • Removed dependence on world state (PG  LUG) • Removed dependence on belief state (LUG  SALUG) • Dramatically improved performance ({LUG,SALUG} ~> SLUG) • Empirically demonstrated • Internal performance boost • Favorable external comparison • SAG has rich connections to: • Constraint propagation (vs. branching) • Lazy evaluation • Memoization

  16. Further Details • Heuristics for belief space in the CAltAlt planner • D. Bryce and S. Kambhampati, “Heuristic Guidance Measures for Conformant Planning”, In ICAPS’04, 2004. • Labeled Uncertainty Graph in the CAltAlt planner • D. Bryce, S. Kambhampati, and D. Smith, “Planning in Belief Space with a Labelled Uncertainty Graph”, In AAAI Workshop on Markov Processes, 2004. • Heuristics and LUG in the POND and CAltAlt planners • D. Bryce, S. Kambhampati, and D. Smith, “Planning Graph Heuristics for Belief Space Search”, ASU CSE TR, 2005. • SLUG: Improvement to LUG for POND • W. Cushing and D. Bryce, “State Agnostic Planning Graphs”, In AAAI, 2005. • CLUG: propagating numeric information • D. Bryce and S. Kambhampati, “Cost Sensitive Reachability Heuristics for Handling State Uncertainty”, In UAI’05, 2005. http://rakaposhi.eas.asu.edu/belief-search

  17. Questions?

More Related