Daniel Höller

Jayanta Mandi, Marco Foschini, Daniel Holler et al.

In many automated planning applications, action costs can be hard to specify. An example is the time needed to travel through a certain road segment, which depends on many factors, such as the current weather conditions. A natural way to address this issue is to learn to predict these parameters based on input features (e.g., weather forecasts) and use the predicted action costs in automated planning afterward. Decision-Focused Learning (DFL) has been successful in learning to predict the parameters of combinatorial optimization problems in a way that optimizes solution quality rather than prediction quality. This approach yields better results than treating prediction and optimization as separate tasks. In this paper, we investigate for the first time the challenges of implementing DFL for automated planning in order to learn to predict the action costs. There are two main challenges to overcome: (1) planning systems are called during gradient descent learning, to solve planning problems with negative action costs, which are not supported in planning. We propose novel methods for gradient computation to avoid this issue. (2) DFL requires repeated planner calls during training, which can limit the scalability of the method. We experiment with different methods approximating the optimal plan as well as an easy-to-implement caching mechanism to speed up the learning process. As the first work that addresses DFL for automated planning, we demonstrate that the proposed gradient computation consistently yields significantly better plans than predictions aimed at minimizing prediction error; and that caching can temper the computation requirements.

Arne Köhn, Julia Wichlacz, Álvaro Torralba et al.

When generating technical instructions, it is often convenient to describe complex objects in the world at different levels of abstraction. A novice user might need an object explained piece by piece, while for an expert, talking about the complex object (e.g. a wall or railing) directly may be more succinct and efficient. We show how to generate building instructions at different levels of abstraction in Minecraft. We introduce the use of hierarchical planning to this end, a method from AI planning which can capture the structure of complex objects neatly. A crowdsourcing evaluation shows that the choice of abstraction level matters to users, and that an abstraction strategy which balances low-level and high-level object descriptions compares favorably to ones which don't.

Timo P. Gros, Daniel Höller, Jörg Hoffmann et al.

Learning-based approaches for solving large sequential decision making problems have become popular in recent years. The resulting agents perform differently and their characteristics depend on those of the underlying learning approach. Here, we consider a benchmark planning problem from the reinforcement learning domain, the Racetrack, to investigate the properties of agents derived from different deep (reinforcement) learning approaches. We compare the performance of deep supervised learning, in particular imitation learning, to reinforcement learning for the Racetrack model. We find that imitation learning yields agents that follow more risky paths. In contrast, the decisions of deep reinforcement learning are more foresighted, i.e., avoid states in which fatal decisions are more likely. Our evaluations show that for this sequential decision making problem, deep reinforcement learning performs best in many aspects even though for imitation learning optimal decisions are considered.

D. Höller, G. Behnke, P. Bercher et al.

The research in hierarchical planning has made considerable progress in the last few years. Many recent systems do not rely on hand-tailored advice anymore to find solutions, but are supposed to be domain-independent systems that come with sophisticated solving techniques. In principle, this development would make the comparison between systems easier (because the domains are not tailored to a single system anymore) and -- much more important -- also the integration into other systems, because the modeling process is less tedious (due to the lack of advice) and there is no (or less) commitment to a certain planning system the model is created for. However, these advantages are destroyed by the lack of a common input language and feature set supported by the different systems. In this paper, we propose an extension to PDDL, the description language used in non-hierarchical planning, to the needs of hierarchical planning systems. We restrict our language to a basic feature set shared by many recent systems, give an extension of PDDL's EBNF syntax definition, and discuss our extensions with respect to several planner-specific input languages from related work.

D. Höller, G. Behnke, P. Bercher et al.

Over the last year, the amount of research in hierarchical planning has increased, leading to significant improvements in the performance of planners. However, the research is diverging and planners are somewhat hard to compare against each other. This is mostly caused by the fact that there is no standard set of benchmark domains, nor even a common description language for hierarchical planning problems. As a consequence, the available planners support a widely varying set of features and (almost) none of them can solve (or even parse) any problem developed for another planner. With this paper, we propose to create a new track for the IPC in which hierarchical planners will compete. This competition will result in a standardised description language, broader support for core features of that language among planners, a set of benchmark problems, a means to fairly and objectively compare HTN planners, and for new challenges for planners.