Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 4
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Classical planning in Artificial Intelligence is a computationally expensive problem of finding a sequence of actions that transforms a given initial state of the problem to a desired goal situation. Lack of information about the initial state leads to conditional and conformant planning that is more difficult than classical one. A parallel plan is the plan in which some actions can be executed in parallel, usually leading to decrease of the plan execution time but increase of the difficulty of finding the plan. This paper is focused on three planning problems which are computationally difficult: conditional, conformant and parallel conformant. To avoid these difficulties a set of transformations to Linear Programming Problem (LPP), illustrated by examples, is proposed. The results show that solving LPP corresponding to the planning problem can be computationally easier than solving the planning problem by exploring the problem state space. The cost is that not always the LPP solution can be interpreted directly as a plan.
Go to article

Bibliography

[1] J.L. Ambite and C.A. Knoblock: Planning by rewriting. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 15 (2001), 207–261, DOI: 10.1613/jair.754.
[2] Ch. Backstrom: Computational Aspects of Reordering Plans. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 9 (1998), 99–137, DOI: 10.1613/jair.477.
[3] Ch. Baral, V. Kreinovich, and R. Trejo: Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in the presence of incompleteness. Artificial Intelligence, 122 (2000), 241–267, DOI: 10.1007/3-540-44957-4_59.
[4] R. Bartak: Constraint satisfaction techniques in planning and scheduling: An introduction. Archives of Control Sciences, 18(2), (2008), DOI: 10.1007/s10845-008-0203-4.
[5] A. Bhattacharya and P. Vasant: Soft-sensing of level of satisfaction in TOC product-mix decision heuristic using robust fuzzy-LP, European Journal of Operational Research, 177(1), (2007), 55–70, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.11.017.
[6] J. Blythe: An Overview of Planning Under Uncertainty. Pre-print from AI Magazine, 20(2), (1999), 37–54, DOI: 10.1007/3-540-48317-9_4.
[7] T. Bylander: The Computational Complexity of Propositional STRIPS Planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69 (1994), 165–204, DOI: 10.1016/0004- 3702(94)90081-7.
[8] T. Bylander: A Linear Programming Heuristic for Optimal Planning. In Proc. of AAAI Nat. Conf., (1997).
[9] L.G. Chaczijan: A polynomial algorithm for linear programming. Dokł. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 244 (1979), 1093–1096.
[10] E.R. Dougherty and Ch.R. Giardina: Mathematical Methods for Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems, Prentice-Hall International, Inc. USA, 1988.
[11] I. Elamvazuthi, P. Vasant, and T. Ganesan: Fuzzy Linear Programming using Modified Logistic Membership Function, International Review of Automatic Control, 3(4), (2010), 370–377, DOI: 10.3923/jeasci.2010.239.245.
[12] A. Galuszka: On transformation of STRIPS planning to linear programming. Archives of Control Sciences, 21(3), (2011), 227–251, DOI: 10.2478/v10170-010-0042-3.
[13] A. Galuszka, W. Ilewicz, and A. Olczyk: On Translation of Conformant Action Planning to Linear Programming. Proc. 20th International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation & Robotics, 24–27 August, (2005), 353–357, DOI: 10.1109/MMAR.2015.7283901.
[14] A. Galuszka, T. Grzejszczak, J. Smieja, A. Olczyk, and J. Kocerka: On parallel conformant planning as an optimization problem. 32nd Annual European Simulation and Modelling Conference, Ghent, (2018), 17–22.
[15] M. Ghallab et al.: PDDL – the Planning Domain Definition Language, Version 1.2. Technical Report DCS TR-1165, Yale Center for Computational Vision and Control, (1998).
[16] A. Grastien and E. Scala: Sampling Strategies for Conformant Planning. Proc. Twenty-Eighth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, (2018), 97–105.
[17] A. Grastien and E. Scala: CPCES: A planning framework to solve conformant planning problems through a counterexample guided refinement. Artificial Intelligence, 284 (2020), 103271, DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2020.103271.
[18] D. Hoeller, G. Behnke, P. Bercher, S. Biundo, H. Fiorino, D. Pellier, and R. Alford: HDDL: An extension to PDDL for expressing hierarchical planning problems. Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 34(6), (2020), 1–9, DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v34i06.6542.
[19] J. Koehler and K. Schuster: Elevator Control as a Planning Problem. AIPS-2000, (2000), 331–338.
[20] R. van der. Krogt: Modification strategies for SAT-based plan adaptation. Archives of Control Sciences, 18(2), (2008).
[21] M.D. Madronero, D. Peidro, and P. Vasant: Vendor selection problem by using an interactive fuzzy multi-objective approach with modified s-curve membership functions. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 60 (2010), 1038–1048, DOI: 10.1016/j.camwa.2010.03.060.
[22] A. Nareyek, C. Freuder, R. Fourer, E. Giunchiglia, R.P. Goldman, H. Kautz, J. Rintanen, and A. Tate: Constraitns and AI Planning. IEEE Intelligent Systems, (2005), 62–72, DOI: 10.1109/MIS.2005.25.
[23] N.J. Nilson: Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Toga Publishing Company, Palo Alto, CA, 1980.
[24] E.P.D. Pednault: ADL and the state-transition model of action. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5), (1994), 467–512, DOI: 10.1093/logcom/4.5.467.
[25] D. Peidro and P. Vasant: Transportation planning with modified scurve membership functions using an interactive fuzzy multi-objective approach, Applied Soft Computing, 11 (2011), 2656–2663, DOI: 10.1016/j.asoc.2010.10.014.
[26] F. Pommerening, G. Roger, M. Helmert, H. Cambazard, L.M. Rousseau, and D. Salvagnin: Lagrangian decomposition for classical planning. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2020), 4770—4774, DOI: 10.24963/ijcai. 2020/663.
[27] T. Rosa, S. Jimenez, R. Fuentetaja, and D. Barrajo: Scaling up heuristic planning with relational decision trees. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 40 (2011), 767–813, DOI: 10.1613/jair.3231.
[28] S.J. Russell and P. Norvig: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Fourth Edition. Pearson, 2020.
[29] J. Seipp, T. Keller, and M. Helmert: Saturated post-hoc optimization for classical planning. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (2021).
[30] D.E. Smith and D.S. Weld: Conformant Graphplan. Proc. 15th National Conf. on AI, (1998).
[31] D.S. Weld: Recent Advantages in AI Planning. AI Magazine, (1999), DOI: 10.1609/aimag.v20i2.1459.
[32] D.S. Weld, C.R. Anderson, and D.E. Smith: Extending graphplan to handle uncertainty & sensing actions. Proc. 15th National Conf. on AI, (1998), 897–904.
[33] X. Zhang, A. Grastien, and E. Scala: Computing superior counterexamples for conformant planning. Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34(6), (2020), 1–8, DOI: 10.1609/aaai.v34i06.6558.


Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Adam Galuszka
1
Eryka Probierz
1

  1. Department of Automatic Control and Robotics, Silesian University of Technology, Akademicka 16, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Abstract The paper addresses the problem of algorithm synthesis for controlling the motion of an electric powered wheelchair. The aim of the algorithm is to stabilize the wheelchair following a linear path and avoiding obstacles if occurred on its way. The main restriction imposed on the project is the application of simple low-cost sensors. That implies the system to cope with a number of inaccuracies and uncertainties related to the measurements. The goal of this work is to evaluate the possibility of the wheelchair project with a navigation system which aids a disable person to move in a complex and dynamic areas. Exemplary simulations are presented in order to discuss the results obtained.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Krzysztof Skrzypczyk
Adam Gałuszka
Witold Ilewicz
Tomasz Antas
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper presents a concept of an Integrated System of Supporting Information Management in Passenger Traffic (ISSIMPT). The novelty of the system is an integration of six modules: video monitoring, counting passenger flows, dynamic information for passengers, the central processing unit, surveillance center and vehicle diagnostics into one coherent solution. Basing on expert evaluations, we propose to present configuration design problem of the system as a multi-objectives discrete static optimization problem. Then, hybrid method joining properties of weighted sum and ε-constraint methods is applied to solve the problem. Solution selections based on hybrid method, using set of exemplary cases, are shown.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Adam Galuszka
Jolanta Krystek
Andrzej Swierniak
Carmen Lungoci
Tomasz Grzejszczak

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more