Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair

M. Fox, A. Gerevini, D. Long, I. Serina

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

126 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The ultimate objective in planning is to construct plans for execution. However, when a plan is executed in a real environment it can encounter differences between the expected and actual context of execution. These differences can manifest as divergences between the expected and observed states of the world, or as a change in the goals to be achieved by the plan. In both cases, the old plan must be replaced with a new one. In replacing the plan an important consideration is plan stability. We compare two alternative strategies for achieving the {em stable} repair of a plan: one is simply to replan from scratch and the other is to adapt the existing plan to the new context. We present arguments to support the claim that plan stability is a valuable property. We then propose an implementation, based on LPG, of a plan repair strategy that adapts a plan to its new context. We demonstrate empirically that our plan repair strategy achieves more stability than replanning and can produce repaired plans more efficiently than replanning.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationProceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Repair
Liquefied petroleum gas
Planning

Keywords

  • plan stability
  • artificial intelligence
  • scheduling

Cite this

Fox, M., Gerevini, A., Long, D., & Serina, I. (2006). Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair. In Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)
Fox, M. ; Gerevini, A. ; Long, D. ; Serina, I. / Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair. Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS). 2006.
@inbook{fc61dab8b8db43a483baa07735186beb,
title = "Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair",
abstract = "The ultimate objective in planning is to construct plans for execution. However, when a plan is executed in a real environment it can encounter differences between the expected and actual context of execution. These differences can manifest as divergences between the expected and observed states of the world, or as a change in the goals to be achieved by the plan. In both cases, the old plan must be replaced with a new one. In replacing the plan an important consideration is plan stability. We compare two alternative strategies for achieving the {em stable} repair of a plan: one is simply to replan from scratch and the other is to adapt the existing plan to the new context. We present arguments to support the claim that plan stability is a valuable property. We then propose an implementation, based on LPG, of a plan repair strategy that adapts a plan to its new context. We demonstrate empirically that our plan repair strategy achieves more stability than replanning and can produce repaired plans more efficiently than replanning.",
keywords = "plan stability, artificial intelligence, scheduling",
author = "M. Fox and A. Gerevini and D. Long and I. Serina",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-1-57735-270-9",
booktitle = "Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)",

}

Fox, M, Gerevini, A, Long, D & Serina, I 2006, Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair. in Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS).

Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair. / Fox, M.; Gerevini, A.; Long, D.; Serina, I.

Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS). 2006.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair

AU - Fox, M.

AU - Gerevini, A.

AU - Long, D.

AU - Serina, I.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - The ultimate objective in planning is to construct plans for execution. However, when a plan is executed in a real environment it can encounter differences between the expected and actual context of execution. These differences can manifest as divergences between the expected and observed states of the world, or as a change in the goals to be achieved by the plan. In both cases, the old plan must be replaced with a new one. In replacing the plan an important consideration is plan stability. We compare two alternative strategies for achieving the {em stable} repair of a plan: one is simply to replan from scratch and the other is to adapt the existing plan to the new context. We present arguments to support the claim that plan stability is a valuable property. We then propose an implementation, based on LPG, of a plan repair strategy that adapts a plan to its new context. We demonstrate empirically that our plan repair strategy achieves more stability than replanning and can produce repaired plans more efficiently than replanning.

AB - The ultimate objective in planning is to construct plans for execution. However, when a plan is executed in a real environment it can encounter differences between the expected and actual context of execution. These differences can manifest as divergences between the expected and observed states of the world, or as a change in the goals to be achieved by the plan. In both cases, the old plan must be replaced with a new one. In replacing the plan an important consideration is plan stability. We compare two alternative strategies for achieving the {em stable} repair of a plan: one is simply to replan from scratch and the other is to adapt the existing plan to the new context. We present arguments to support the claim that plan stability is a valuable property. We then propose an implementation, based on LPG, of a plan repair strategy that adapts a plan to its new context. We demonstrate empirically that our plan repair strategy achieves more stability than replanning and can produce repaired plans more efficiently than replanning.

KW - plan stability

KW - artificial intelligence

KW - scheduling

UR - http://www.aaai.org/Library/ICAPS/icaps06contents.php

UR - http://planning.cis.strath.ac.uk/publications/FoxICAPS.pdf

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-1-57735-270-9

BT - Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS)

ER -

Fox M, Gerevini A, Long D, Serina I. Plan stability: replanning versus plan repair. In Proceedings of International Conference on AI Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS). 2006