TY - GEN
T1 - Tunneling and decomposition-based state reduction for optimal planning
AU - Nissim, Raz
AU - Apsel, Udi
AU - Brafman, Ronen
PY - 2012/1/1
Y1 - 2012/1/1
N2 - Action pruning is one of the most basic techniques for improving a planner's performance. The challenge of preserving op-timality while reducing the state space has been addressed by several methods in recent years. In this paper we describe two optimality preserving pruning methods: The first is a generalization of tunnel macros. The second, the main contribution of this paper, is a novel partition-based pruning method. The latter requires the introduction of new automated domain decomposition techniques which are of independent interest. Both methods prune the actions applicable at state s based on the last action leading to s, and both attempt to capture the intuition that, when possible, we should focus on one subgoal at a time. As we demonstrate, neither method dominates the other, and a combination of both allows us to obtain an even stronger pruning rule. We also introduce a few modifications to A* that utilize properties shared by both methods to find an optimal plan. Our empirical evaluation compares the pruning power of the two methods and their combination, showing good coverage, reduction in running time, and reduction in the number of expansions.
AB - Action pruning is one of the most basic techniques for improving a planner's performance. The challenge of preserving op-timality while reducing the state space has been addressed by several methods in recent years. In this paper we describe two optimality preserving pruning methods: The first is a generalization of tunnel macros. The second, the main contribution of this paper, is a novel partition-based pruning method. The latter requires the introduction of new automated domain decomposition techniques which are of independent interest. Both methods prune the actions applicable at state s based on the last action leading to s, and both attempt to capture the intuition that, when possible, we should focus on one subgoal at a time. As we demonstrate, neither method dominates the other, and a combination of both allows us to obtain an even stronger pruning rule. We also introduce a few modifications to A* that utilize properties shared by both methods to find an optimal plan. Our empirical evaluation compares the pruning power of the two methods and their combination, showing good coverage, reduction in running time, and reduction in the number of expansions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878795823&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-624
DO - 10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-624
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84878795823
SN - 9781614990970
T3 - Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications
SP - 624
EP - 629
BT - ECAI 2012 - 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 27-31 August 2012, Montpellier, France - Including Prestigious Applications of Artificial Intelligence (PAIS-2012) System Demonstration
PB - IOS Press BV
T2 - 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2012
Y2 - 27 August 2012 through 31 August 2012
ER -