Search
  • All Journals
Advanced Search
Search articles by Title, Author, Keywords, DOI
3.9CiteScore
1.3Impact Factor
Advanced Search
MAP  >  The Knowledge Engineering Review
2007 Volume 22
Article Contents
Next Previous
RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

PLTOOL: A knowledge engineering tool for planning and learning

More Information
  • Absract: Artificial intelligence (AI) planning solves the problem of generating a correct and efficient ordered set of instantiated activities, from a knowledge base of generic actions, which when executed will transform some initial state into some desirable end-state. There is a long tradition of work in AI for developing planners that make use of heuristics that are shown to improve their performance in many real world and artificial domains. The developers of planners have chosen between two extremes when defining those heuristics. The domain-independent planners use domain-independent heuristics, which exploit information only from the ‘syntactic’ structure of the problem space and of the search tree. Therefore, they do not need any ‘semantic’ information from a given domain in order to guide the search. From a knowledge engineering (KE) perspective, the planners that use this type of heuristics have the advantage that the users of this technology need only focus on defining the domain theory and not on defining how to make the planner efficient (how to obtain ‘good’ solutions with the minimal computational resources). However, the domain-dependent planners require users to manually represent knowledge not only about the domain theory, but also about how to make the planner efficient. This approach has the advantage of using either better domain-theory formulations or using domain knowledge for defining the heuristics, thus potentially making them more efficient. However, the efficiency of these domain-dependent planners strongly relies on the KE and planning expertise of the user. When the user is an expert on these two types of knowledge, domain-dependent planners clearly outperform domain-independent planners in terms of number of solved problems and quality of solutions. Machine-learning (ML) techniques applied to solve the planning problems have focused on providing middle-ground solutions as compared to the aforementioned two extremes. Here, the user first defines a domain theory, and then executes the ML techniques that automatically modify or generate new knowledge with respect to both the domain theory and the heuristics. In this paper, we present our work on building a tool, PLTOOL (planning and learning tool), to help users interact with a set of ML techniques and planners. The goal is to provide a KE framework for mixed-initiative generation of efficient and good planning knowledge.
  • 加载中
  • Aler R. and Borrajo D.2002 On control knowledge acquisition by exploiting human-computer interaction. In Ghallab M., Hertzberg J. and Traverso P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS-02). Toulouse, France: AAAI Press, pp. 112–120.

    Google Scholar

    Aler R., 2000 Knowledge representation issues in control knowledge learning. In Langley P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’00. Stanford, CA(USA): Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar

    Aler R., 2002Using genetic programming to learn and improve control knowledge. Artificial Intelligence141(1–2), 29–56.

    Google Scholar

    Ambite J.L., 2000 Learning plan rewriting rules. In Steve Chien, Subbarao Kambhampati & Graig, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling. Breckenbridge, CO, USA: pp. 14–17.

    Google Scholar

    Arias J.D., 2005 Using ontologies for planning tourist visits. In Working notes of the ICAPS’0 5Workshop on Role of Ontologies in Planning and Scheduling. Monterey, CA (EEUU): AAAI, AAAI Press, pp. 52–59.

    Google Scholar

    Bacchus F. and Kabanza F.2000Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence116, 123–191.

    Google Scholar

    Bäckström C.1992 Computational complexity of reasoning about plans. PhD thesis, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden.

    Google Scholar

    Blum A.L. & Furst M. L.1995 Fast planning through planning graph analysis. In Mellish C. S. (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-95. Montréal, Canada: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 1636–1642.

    Google Scholar

    Bonet B. and Geffner H.2001Planning as heuristic search. Artificial Intelligence129(1–2), 5–33.

    Google Scholar

    Borrajo D. and Veloso M.1997Lazy incremental learning of control knowledge for efficiently obtaining quality plans. AI Review Journal. Special Issue on Lazy Learning11(1–5), 371–405. Also in the book Lazy learning, Aha D. (ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, May 1997, ISBN 0-7923-4584-3.

    Google Scholar

    Borrajo D., 1999 Multistrategy relational learning of heuristics for problem solving. In Bramer M., Macintosh A. and Coenen F. (eds.), Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XVI. Proceedings of Expert Systems 99, The 19th SGES International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence, BCS Conference Series. Cambridge, England: Springer-Verlag, pp. 57–71.

    Google Scholar

    Borrajo D., 2001 Quality-based Learning for Planning. In Working notes of the IJCAI’01 Workshop on Planning with Resources. Seattle, WA (USA): IJCAI Press, pp. 9–17.

    Google Scholar

    Botea A., 2005 Learning partial-order macros from solutions. In Proceedings of ICAPS’05, Monterrey (USA).

    Google Scholar

    Bylander T.1994The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence69(1–2), 165–204.

    Google Scholar

    Carbonell J.G., 1992 PRODIGY4.0: the manual and tutorial. Technical Report CMU-CS-92-150, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar

    Castillo L., 2001Mixing expressiveness and efficiency in a manufacturing planner. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence13, 141–162.

    Google Scholar

    Cesta A., 2002A constrained-based method for project scheduling with time windows. Journal of Heuristics8, 109–136.

    Google Scholar

    Cortellesa G. and Cesta A.2006 Feature evaluation in mixed-initiative systems: an experimental approach. In Derek Long D.B., Smith S. and McCluskey L. (eds.), Proceedings of ICAPS’06. Ambleside (UK): AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar

    Currie K. and Tate A.1991O-plan: the open planning architecture. Artificial Intelligence52(1), 49–86.

    Google Scholar

    Estlin T.A. and Mooney R.J.1997 Learning to improve both efficiency and quality of planning. In Pollack M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97). Nagoya, Japan: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 1227–1232.

    Google Scholar

    Etzioni O. and Minton S.1992 Why EBL produces overly-specific knowledge: a critique of the prodigy approaches. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Machine Learning. Aberdeen, Scotland: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 137–143.

    Google Scholar

    Fernández S., 2004 Using previous experience for learning planning control knowledge. In Barr V. and Markov Z. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeen International Florida Artificial Intelligence (FLAIRS04). Miami Beach, FL (USA): AAAI Press, pp. 713–718.

    Google Scholar

    Fernández S., 2005Machine learning in hybrid hierarchical and partial-order planners for manufacturing domains. Applied Artificial Intelligence19(8), 783–809.

    Google Scholar

    Fikes R.E., 1972Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence3, 251–288.

    Google Scholar

    Ghallab M., 2004Automated task planning. theory & practice. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar

    Gratch J. and DeJong G.1992 COMPOSER: a probabilistic solution to the utility problem in speed-up learning. In Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 235–240.

    Google Scholar

    Hoffmann J. and Nebel B.2001The FF planning system: fast plan generation through heuristic search. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research14, 253–302.

    Google Scholar

    Huang Y.-C., 2000 Learning declarative control rules for constraint-based planning. In Langley P. (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’00, Stanford, CA (USA).

    Google Scholar

    Joseph R.L.1989 Graphical knowledge acquisition. In Proceedings of the 4th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, Banff, Canada.

    Google Scholar

    Kambhampati S.1989 Flexible reuse and modification in hierarchical planning: a validation structure based approach. PhD thesis, Computer Vision Laboratory, Center for Automation Research, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.

    Google Scholar

    Kambhampati S.2000Planning graph as a (dynamic) CSP: exploiting EBL, DDB and other CSP search techniques in graph-plan. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research12, 1–34.

    Google Scholar

    Khardon R.1999Learning action strategies for planning domains. Artificial Intelligence113(1–2), 125–148.

    Google Scholar

    Knoblock C.A., 1991 Integrating abstraction and explanation based learning in PRODIGY. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 541–546.

    Google Scholar

    Korf R.E.1985Macro-operators: a weak method for learning. Artificial Intelligence26, 35–77.

    Google Scholar

    McCluskey L., 2003a Knowledge engineering for planning ROADMAP. In Lee McCluskey (ed.) The PLANET Final Report to the EC, November 2000.

    Google Scholar

    McCluskey T.L.1987 Combining weak learning heuristics in general problem solvers. In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’87). Milan, Italy: Morgan Kaufman.

    Google Scholar

    McCluskey T.L.1989 Explanation-based and similarity-based heuristic acquisition in a general planner. In Proceedings of the 4th European Working Session on Learning. London: Pitman.

    Google Scholar

    McCluskey T.L., 2003b GIPO II: HTN planning in a tool-supported knowledge engineering environment. In Proceedings of ICAPS’03. Trento (Italia): AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar

    McCluskey T.L. & Porteous J.M.1997Engineering and compiling planning domain models to promote validity and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence95(1), 1–65.

    Google Scholar

    Minton S.1988Learning Effective Search Control Knowledge: An Explanation-Based Approach. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar

    Minton S., 1989 PRODIGY 2.0: the manual and tutorial. Technical Report CMU-CS-89-146, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.

    Google Scholar

    Mitchell T.M., 1986Explanation-based generalization: a unifying view. Machine Learning1, 47–80.

    Google Scholar

    Myers K. and Wilkins D.1997 The act-editor user’s guide: a manual for version 2.2. Technical Report, SRI.

    Google Scholar

    Nau D., 2003SHOP2: an HTN planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research20, 379–404.

    Google Scholar

    Qu Y. and Kambhampati S.1995 Learning search control rules for plan-space planners: factors affecting the performance. Technical Report, Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar

    Rodríguez-Moreno M.D., 2004a An AI planning-based tool for scheduling satellite nominal operations. AI Magazine25(4), 9–27.

    Google Scholar

    Rodríguez-Moreno M.D., 2004b IPSS: a problem solver that integrates P&S’. In Third Italian Workshop on Planning and Scheduling.

    Google Scholar

    Rodríguez-Moreno M.D., 2004c IPSS: a hybrid reasoner for planning and scheduling. In de Mántaras R. L. and Saitta L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004).Valencia (Spain): IOS Press, pp. 1065–1066.

    Google Scholar

    Upal M.A. and Elio R.2000 Learning search control rules versus rewrite rules to improve plan quality. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 240–253.

    Google Scholar

    Veloso M.1994Planning and Learning by Analogical Reasoning. New York, USA: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar

    Veloso M., 1995Integrating planning and learning: the PRODIGY architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical AI7, 81–120.

    Google Scholar

    Wang X.1994 Learning planning operators by observation and practice. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on AI Planning Systems, AIPS-94. Chicago, IL: AAAI Press, CA, pp. 335–340.

    Google Scholar

    Yang Q., 2005 Learning action models from plan examples with incomplete knowledge. In Proceedings of ICAPS’05, Monterrey, USA.

    Google Scholar

    Zimmerman T. and Kambhampati S.2003Learning-assisted automated planning: looking back, taking stock, going forward. AI Magazine24(2), 73–96.

    Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Susana Fernández, Daniel Borrajo, Raquel Fuentetaja, Juan D. Arias, Manuela Veloso. 2007. PLTOOL: A knowledge engineering tool for planning and learning. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 22:75 doi: 10.1017/S0269888907001075
    Susana Fernández, Daniel Borrajo, Raquel Fuentetaja, Juan D. Arias, Manuela Veloso. 2007. PLTOOL: A knowledge engineering tool for planning and learning. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 22:75 doi: 10.1017/S0269888907001075
    shu
Download PDF

Article Metrics

Article views(29) PDF downloads(138)

Other Articles By Authors

RESEARCH ARTICLE   Open Access    

PLTOOL: A knowledge engineering tool for planning and learning

  • Published online: 01 June 2007
The Knowledge Engineering Review  22,  Article number: 10.1017/S0269888907001075  (2007)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Absract: Artificial intelligence (AI) planning solves the problem of generating a correct and efficient ordered set of instantiated activities, from a knowledge base of generic actions, which when executed will transform some initial state into some desirable end-state. There is a long tradition of work in AI for developing planners that make use of heuristics that are shown to improve their performance in many real world and artificial domains. The developers of planners have chosen between two extremes when defining those heuristics. The domain-independent planners use domain-independent heuristics, which exploit information only from the ‘syntactic’ structure of the problem space and of the search tree. Therefore, they do not need any ‘semantic’ information from a given domain in order to guide the search. From a knowledge engineering (KE) perspective, the planners that use this type of heuristics have the advantage that the users of this technology need only focus on defining the domain theory and not on defining how to make the planner efficient (how to obtain ‘good’ solutions with the minimal computational resources). However, the domain-dependent planners require users to manually represent knowledge not only about the domain theory, but also about how to make the planner efficient. This approach has the advantage of using either better domain-theory formulations or using domain knowledge for defining the heuristics, thus potentially making them more efficient. However, the efficiency of these domain-dependent planners strongly relies on the KE and planning expertise of the user. When the user is an expert on these two types of knowledge, domain-dependent planners clearly outperform domain-independent planners in terms of number of solved problems and quality of solutions. Machine-learning (ML) techniques applied to solve the planning problems have focused on providing middle-ground solutions as compared to the aforementioned two extremes. Here, the user first defines a domain theory, and then executes the ML techniques that automatically modify or generate new knowledge with respect to both the domain theory and the heuristics. In this paper, we present our work on building a tool, PLTOOL (planning and learning tool), to help users interact with a set of ML techniques and planners. The goal is to provide a KE framework for mixed-initiative generation of efficient and good planning knowledge.

    HTML

    Rights and permissions
    • Copyright © Cambridge University Press 20072007Cambridge University Press
References (54)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Susana Fernández, Daniel Borrajo, Raquel Fuentetaja, Juan D. Arias, Manuela Veloso. 2007. PLTOOL: A knowledge engineering tool for planning and learning. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 22:75 doi: 10.1017/S0269888907001075
    Susana Fernández, Daniel Borrajo, Raquel Fuentetaja, Juan D. Arias, Manuela Veloso. 2007. PLTOOL: A knowledge engineering tool for planning and learning. The Knowledge Engineering Review. 22:75 doi: 10.1017/S0269888907001075
    shu

    • Catalog

      /

      DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
      Return
      Return