A classical solution concept in fully observable nondeterministic (FOND) planning, is the strong policy (aka winning strategy in the closely related area of reactive synthesis), i.e., such a policy ensures that the goal is reached in an adversarial environment. When strong policies are not available or there is no evidence that the environment is adversarial, one can resort to best-effort policies, which always exist, and which follow the classic decision-theoretic principle that an agent should not use a dominated strategy. A typical positional best-effort policy works as follows: from every state, it follows a strong policy if one exists from that state (such states are called strong-winning''), else a weak policy if one exists from that state (weak-winning''), and else is unconstrained (``losing''). In this work, we introduce a sound and complete planner for both best-effort planning and strong planning. The algorithm that underpins the planner is quite simple: it represents certain sets of states, such as the winning regions, by their ⊆-minimal elements. The algorithm returns uniform policies, i.e., it returns a policy πt that is a strong solution starting in every strong-winning state, and it returns a policy πw that is a weak solution starting in every weak-winning state, and it provides a certificate for the set of losing states. We implemented the algorithm with some simple optimizations (calling it FONDANT), and evaluated it on a benchmark set consisting of the instances that were used in the evaluation of leading strong planners PR2 and FOND-SAT, and the best-effort planner BeSyftP. On coverage, our implementation is at least as good on all domains, and outperforms on some domains; and on wall time, it is slower on small and medium-sized instances, and outperforms on larger instances.
Figures & tables
domain
FONDANT (ours)
PR2
FOND-SAT
doors
15/15
14/15
15/15
miner
51/51
51/51
51/51
elev-strong
9/9
9/9
7/9
tire-strong
12/12
12/12
12/12
tire-spiky
11/11
11/11
10/11
tri-tire
40/40
32/40
2/40
Table 1: Coverage table for strong winning instances: FONDANT (ours) vs. PR2 and FOND-SAT within the 1800s and 16GB cap; cells are solved/total within scope, bold marks the highest number of solved instances per row.
domain
instances
FONDANT
PR2
avg (s)
max (s)
avg (s)
max (s)
doors
14
0.19
0.20
52.3
560.3
miner
51
0.41
1.35
0.20
0.35
elev-strong
9
0.20
0.20
0.12
0.13
tire-strong
12
0.18
0.20
0.12
0.14
tire-spiky
11
0.19
0.21
0.13
0.14
Table 2: Wall times on the 204 strong-winning instances both solve, per domain: mean and slowest wall (s) over the same instance set for each solver. PR2’s no-answer rows are excluded (doors p15; triangle p33–p40). Bold = faster (lower).
domain
#instances
FONDANT (ours)
BeSyftP
avg (s)
max (s)
avg (s)
max (s)
BestEffortTests
7
0.24
0.30
0.06
0.06
TriangleTireWorld
10
0.18
0.21
60.1
315.6
Elevators
9
0.30
0.71
178.3
1001.7
RectangleTireworld
8
0.51
0.79
43.2
236.8
TOTAL
34
0.30
0.79
75.0
1001.7
Table 3: Wall times on the 34 best-effort instances both planners answer, per family (mean/slowest, s). The twelve instances only FONDANT answers (elevators p09/p11–p15, rectangle p9–p14) are not included this table. Bold means faster (lower) per statistic.
FONDANT (ours)
BeSyftP
domain
#instances
strong
coop
losing
ans
strong
coop
losing
ans
BestEffortTests
7
3
2
2
7
3
2
2
7
TriangleTireWorld (p1–p10)
10
10
0
0
10
10
0
0
10
Elevators
15
9
6
0
15
7
2
0
9 ‡
RectangleTireworld
15
14
0
0
14 †
8
0
0
8 ‡
TOTAL
47
36
8
2
46
28
4
2
34
Table 4: Best-effort three-way classification (strong / weak / losing) of FONDANT side by side with the synthesizer BeSyftP ( De Giacomo et al. 2023 ) on its published families; cells count instances per verdict class (“ans” = answered). Bold = our totals.
Automated Planning is a subfield of Artificial Intelligence (AI) where the main objective is generating a sequence of actions, known as a plan, that helps us reach a goal state from an initial state. A planning problem is defined by a set of objects, an initial state and a desired goal state. The objective is to compute a plan that'll lead us from the inital state to the goal state. Programs that generate plans are called planners. In this paper, we did a complementary study to the state-of-the-art LLM called PlanGPT which was released last year. We redid some experiments to verify whether planning with LLMs is \textbf{pertinent} and \textbf{worthwhile}. We also check whether the results obtained in the official PlanGPT paper for plan coverage were correct, and we also performed a more comprehensive study on PlanGPT's performance: in our paper PlanGPT's performance was evaluated using two metrics: Plan Cost and Plan Generation Time. The results of planGPT were compared to those produced by a traditional planner for the same plans and same metrics. We discovered that PlanGPT is no better than a Greedy search strategy.
Greedy Best-First Search (GBFS) is the dominant approach for solving search problems where the goal can be estimated with a heuristic, such as planning, route finding, navigation, and pathfinding. This is especially true when the memory is tightly constrained, such as planning on edge devices. To alleviate that, we present GONDOR (Greedy Online Navigation with Dynamic Outpost-based Re-search), a memory-efficient extension of GBFS that allows search to continue under strict memory limits by periodically compressing the search tree while retaining a sparse set of anchor states, then upon reaching the goal reconstructs the path by re-searching between the sparse states. We analyze the algorithm and discuss several variants defined by different outpost selection policies. In addition, we explore using Bloom filters for compact duplicate detection in the closed list. Experiments across numeric planning domains and heuristic configurations show that GONDOR consistently improves coverage under low memory budgets compared to standard GBFS. We release the implementation of GONDOR and the Bloom-filter variant to facilitate further research on memory-efficient heuristic search.
Yonatan Vernik, Alexander Tuisov, Alexander Shleyfman
Computer Science Department, Bar-Ilan University · Independent Researcher
We address the problem of planning in an environment with deterministic dynamics and stochastic rewards with discounted returns. The optimal value function is not known, nor are the rewards bounded. We propose Platypoos, a simple scale-free planning algorithm that adapts to the unknown scale and smoothness of the reward function. We provide a sample complexity analysis for Platypoos that improves upon prior work and holds simultaneously over a broad range of discount factors and reward scales, without the algorithm knowing them. We also establish a matching lower bound showing our analysis is optimal up to constants.
Peter L. Bartlett, Victor Gabillon, Jennifer Healey +1
University of California, Berkeley, USA · Noah’s Ark Lab, Huawei Technologies, London, UK · Adobe Research, San Jose, USA +1