Structure and problem hardness: Goal asymmetry and DPLL proofs in SAT-based planning

ICAPS 2006 - Proceedings, Sixteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling

Volumn 2006, Issue , 2006, Pages 284-293

  Hoffmann, Jörg ^a   Gomes, Caria ^b   Selman, Bart ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATICS   (Germany)

^b Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOOLEAN ALGEBRA; COMBINATORIAL MATHEMATICS; CORRELATION METHODS; MODEMS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ASYMRATIO; EXPONENTIAL LOWER BOUNDS; SATISFIABILITY (SAT); SYNTHETIC PLANNING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 33746046754     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Beame, P.; Kautz, H.; and Sabharwal, A. 2004. Towards understanding and harnessing the potential of clause learning. JA1R 22:319-351.
2. Blum, A., and Furst, M. 1997. Fast planning through planning graph analysis. AI 90(1-2):279-298.
3. Bonet, B., and Geffner, H. 2001. Planning as heuristic search. AI 129(1-2):5-33.
4. Buss, S., and Pitassi, T. 1997, Resolution and the weak pigeon-hole principle. In Proc. CSL'97, 149-156.
5. Cheeseman, P.; Kanefsky, B.; and Taylor, W. 1991. Where the really hard problems are. In Proc. IJCAI'91, 331-337.
6. Cook, S., and Reckhow, R. 1979. The relative efficiency of prepositional proof systems. JSL 44:26-50.
7. Davis, M.; Logemann, G.; and Loveland, D. 1962. A machine program for theorem-proving. Communications of the ACM 5:394-397.
8. Dechter, R. 1990. Enhancement schemes for constraint processing: Backjumping, learning and cutset decomposition. AI 41 (3):273-312.
9. Dechter, R. 2003. Constraint Processing. Morgan-Kauffmann.
10. Edelkamp, S. 2001. Planning with pattern databases. In Proc.ECP'01, 13-24.
11. Frank, J.; Cheeseman, P.; and Stutz, J. 1997. When gravity fails: Local search topology. JAIR 7:249-281.
12. Haken, A. 1985. The intractability of resolution. TCS 39:297-308.
13. Helmert, M. 2003. Complexity results for standard benchmark domains in planning. AI 143:219-262.
14. Helmert, M. 2004. A planning heuristic based on causal graph analysis. In Proc. ICAPS'04, 161-170.
15. Hoffmann, J.; Gomes, C.; and Selman, B. 2006. Structure and problem hardness: Goal asymmetry and DPLL proofs in SAT-based planning. Technical Report. Available at http://www.mpi-sb. mpg.de/~hoffmann/tr-icaps06b.ps.gz.
16. Hoffmann, J.; Porteous, J.; and Sebastia, L. 2004. Ordered landmarks in planning. JAIR 22:215-278.
17. Hoffmann, J. 2005. Where 'ignoring delete lists' works: Local search topology in planning benchmarks. JAIR 24:685-758.
18. Hogg, T; Huberman, B.; and Williams, C. 1996. Phase Transitions and Complexity. AI 81.
19. Howe, A., and Dahlman, E. 2002. A critical assessment of benchmark comparison in planning. JAIR 17:1-33.
20. Hulubei, T., and Sullivan, B. 2005. Optimal refutations for constraint satisfaction problems. In Proc. IJCAI05.
21. Kautz, H., and Selman, B. 1999. Unifying SAT-based and graph-based planning. In Proc. IJCAI'99, 318-325.
22. Long, D., and Fox, M. 2003. The 3rd international planning competition: Results and analysis. JAIR 20:1-59.
23. Moskewicz, M.; Madigan, C.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; and Malik,S. 2001. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proc.DAC'01, 530-535.
24. Nudelman, E.; Leyton-Brown, K.; Hoos, H.; Devkar, A.; and Shoham, Y. 2004. Understanding random SAT: beyond the clauses-to-variable ratio. In Proc. CP-04,438-452.
25. Razborov, A. 2004. Resolution lower bounds for perfect matching principles. J. Computer and Systems Sciences 69(1):3-27.
26. Rintanen, J. 2003. Symmetry reduction for SAT representations of transition systems. In Proc. ICAPS'03,32-41.
27. Rintanen, J. 2004. Phase transitions in classical planning: An experimental study. In Proc. ICAPS'04, 101-110.
28. Sabharwal, A. 2005. Symchaff: A structure-aware satisfiability solver. In Proc. AAAI'05,467-474.
29. Slaney, J., and Walsh, T. 2001. Backbones in optimization and approximation. In Proc. IJCAI01.
30. Streeter, M., and Smith, S. 2005. Characterizing the distribution of low-makespan schedules in the job shop scheduling problem. In Proc. ICAPS'05,61-70.
31. Williams, R.; Gomes, C.; and Selman, B. 2003. Backdoors to typical case complexity. In Proc. IJCAI'03.