Abstract
The paper presents implementations of two logical approaches to plan generation-Linear Connection Proofs and Situational Calculus- and analyses the reasons for their different computational performance. Both implementations are then compared with the planning system ucpop on a set of benchmarks. The interesting outcome is that the logical approaches compete rather well with ucpop and, in particular, with the exploitation of modern theorem proving technology as symbolic constraints, the performance of Situational Calculus is no longer completely disastrous.
On leave from: Institut für Informatik, TU München, D - 80290 München
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A. Barrett and D. Weld. Partial-order planning: Evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artificial Intelligence, 67(1):71–112, 1994.
W. Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, 1982.
W. Bibel. A Deductive Solution for Plan Generation. New Generation Computing, 6:115–132, 1986.
W. Bibel, L. Fariñas del Cerro, B. Fronhöfer, and A. Herzig. Plan Generation by Linear Proofs: On Semantics. In D. Metzing, editor, GWAI'89, 13 th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, volume 216 of Informatik-Fachberichte, pages 49–62, Schloß Eringerfeld, Geseke, Germany, September 1989. Springer, Berlin.
T. Bollinger. A Model Elimination Calculus for Generalized Clauses. In R. Reiter J. Mylopoulos, editor, IJCAI-91, pages 126–131, August 1991.
B. Fronhöfer. Linearity and Plan Generation. New Gen. Computing, 5:213–225, 1987.
B. Fronhöfer. Default Connections a Modal Planning Framework. In J. Hertzberg, editor, European Workshop on Planning (EWSP-91), pages 39–52, Bonn, March 18–19 1991. St.Augustin, Germany, LNAI 522, Springer.
B. Fronhöfer. Linear Proofs and Linear Logic. In D. Pearce and G. Wagner, editors, Logics in AI, pages 106–125, Berlin, September 7–10 1992. JELIA'92, LNCS 633.
B. Fronhöfer. The action-as-implication paradigm: Formal systems and application. Habilitationsschrift, TU München, 1995.
Ch. Goller, R. Letz, K. Mayr, and J. Schumann. Setheo V3.2: Recent Developments. In Alan Bundy, editor, CADE'94, pages 778–782, 1994.
C. Green. Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving. In IJCAI-1, pages 219–239, 1967.
G. Große, S. Hölldobler, and J. Schneeberger. Linear Deductive Planning. Technical report, Intellektik, Informatik, TH Darmstadt, 1992.
G. Große, S. Hölldobler, J. Schneeberger, U. Sigmund, and M. Thielscher. Equational Logic Programming, Actions, and Change. In Proc. Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming JICSLP'92, 1992.
S. Hölldobler and M. Thielscher. On logic, change, and specificity. Intellektik, Informatik, TH Darmstadt, 1992.
E. Jacopin. Classical AI Planning as Theorem Proving: The Case of a Fragment of Linear Logic. In AAAI Fall Syposium on “Automated Deduction in Non Classical Logics”, pages 62–66, Palo Alto, 1993. AAAI Press.
E. Jacopin. Construire des plans en utilisant le calcul des séquents pour un fragment de la logique linéaire. Tech. report, Laforia-IBP, Univ. P. et M. Curie, Paris, 1993.
R. Kowalski. Logic for Problem Solving. North Holland, New York, 1979.
R. Letz, S. Bayerl, J. Schumann, and B. Fronhöfer. The Logic Programming Language LOP. Technical report, Technische Universität München, 1989.
R. Letz, K. Mayr, and C. Goller. Controlled Integration of the Cut Rule into Connection Tableau Calculi. JAR, 13:297–337, 1994.
R. Letz, J. Schumann, S. Bayerl, and W. Bibel. SETHEO: A High-Performance Theorem Prover. JAR, 8(2):183–212, 1992.
V. Lifshitz. On the Semantics of STRIPS. In M.P. Georgeff and A.L. Lansky, editors, Workshop on Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 1–8. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.
M. Masseron, C. Tollu, and J. Vauzeilles. Generating Plans in Linear Logic. Technical Report 90-11, Université Paris Nord, Dép. de math. et informatique, December 1990.
J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some Philosophical Problems from the Stand-point of Artificial Intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.
N. J. Nilsson. Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 1982.
J.S. Penberthy and D. Weld. UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In KR-92, pages 103–114, October 1992.
D. Plaisted. The Search Efficiency of Theorem Proving Strategies. In Alan Bundy, editor, CADE'94, pages 57–71, 1994.
R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus. In Vladimir Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.
J. Schneeberger and S. Hölldobler. A New Deductive Approach to Planning. New Generation Computing, 8:225–244, 1990.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Fronhöfer, B. (1996). Situational Calculus, linear connection proofs and STRIPS-like planning: An experimental comparison. In: Miglioli, P., Moscato, U., Mundici, D., Ornaghi, M. (eds) Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. TABLEAUX 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1071. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61208-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61208-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61208-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68368-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive