J. Hoffmann’s research while affiliated with Max Planck Institute for Software Systems and other places

We provide an overview of the organization and results of the deterministic part of the 4th International Planning Competition, i.e., of the part concerned with evaluating systems doing deterministic planning. IPC-4 attracted even more competing systems than its already large predecessors, and the competition event was revised in several important respects. After giving an introduction to the IPC, we briefly explain the main differences between the deterministic part of IPC-4 and its predecessors. We then introduce formally the language used, called PDDL2.2 that extends PDDL2.1 by derived predicates and timed initial literals. We list the competing systems and overview the results of the competition. The entire set of data is far too large to be presented in full. We provide a detailed summary; the complete data is available in an online appendix. We explain how we awarded the competition prizes.

Between 1998 and 2004, the planning community has seen vast progress in terms of the sizes of benchmark examples that domain-independent planners can tackle successfully. The key technique behind this progress is the use of heuristic functions based on relaxing the planning task at hand, where the relaxation is to assume that all delete lists are empty. The unprecedented success of such methods, in many commonly used benchmark examples, calls for an understanding of what classes of domains these methods are well suited for. In the investigation at hand, we derive a formal background to such an understanding. We perform a case study covering a range of 30 commonly used STRIPS and ADL benchmark domains, including all examples used in the first four international planning competitions. We *prove* connections between domain structure and local search topology -- heuristic cost surface properties -- under an idealized version of the heuristic functions used in modern planners. The idealized heuristic function is called h^+, and differs from the practically used functions in that it returns the length of an *optimal* relaxed plan, which is NP-hard to compute. We identify several key characteristics of the topology under h^+, concerning the existence/non-existence of unrecognized dead ends, as well as the existence/non-existence of constant upper bounds on the difficulty of escaping local minima and benches. These distinctions divide the (set of all) planning domains into a taxonomy of classes of varying h^+ topology. As it turns out, many of the 30 investigated domains lie in classes with a relatively easy topology. Most particularly, 12 of the domains lie in classes where FFs search algorithm, provided with h^+, is a polynomial solving mechanism. We also present results relating h^+ to its approximation as implemented in FF. The behavior regarding dead ends is provably the same. We summarize the results of an empirical investigation showing that, in many domains, the topological qualities of h^+ are largely inherited by the approximation. The overall investigation gives a rare example of a successful analysis of the connections between typical-case problem structure, and search performance. The theoretical investigation also gives hints on how the topological phenomena might be automatically recognizable by domain analysis techniques. We outline some preliminary steps we made into that direction.

Many known planning tasks have inherent constraints concerning the best order in which to achieve the goals. A number of research efforts have been made to detect such constraints and to use them for guiding search, in the hope of speeding up the planning process. We go beyond the previous approaches by considering ordering constraints not only over the (top-level) goals, but also over the sub-goals that will necessarily arise during planning. Landmarks are facts that must be true at some point in every valid solution plan. We extend Koehler and Hoffmann's definition of reasonable orders between top level goals to the more general case of landmarks. We show how landmarks can be found, how their reasonable orders can be approximated, and how this information can be used to decompose a given planning task into several smaller sub-tasks. Our methodology is completely domain- and planner-independent. The implementation demonstrates that the approach can yield significant runtime performance improvements when used as a control loop around state-of-the-art sub-optimal planning systems, as exemplified by FF and LPG.