Search

The use of computational complexity in planning, and in AI in general, has always been a disputed topic. A major problem with ordinary worst-case analyses is that they do not provide any quantitative information: they do not tell us much about the running time of concrete algorithms, nor do they tell us much about the running time of optimal algorithms. We address problems like this by presenting results based on the exponential time hypothesis (ETH), which is a widely accepted hypothesis concerning the time complexity of 3-SAT. By using this approach, we provide, for instance, almost matching upper and lower bounds onthe time complexity of propositional planning., Funding Agencies|National Graduate School in Computer Science (CUGS), Sweden; Swedish Research Council (VR) [621-2014-4086]

Cost-optimal planning has become a very well-studied topic within planning. Needless to say, cost-optimal planning has proven to be computationally hard both theoretically and in practice. Since cost-optimal planning is an optimisation problem, it is natural to analyse it from an approximation point of view. Even though such studies may be valuable in themselves, additional motivation is provided by the fact that there is a very close link between approximability and the performance of heuristics used in heuristic search. The aim of this paper is to analyse approximability (and indirectly the performance of heuristics) with respect to lower time bounds. That is, we are not content by merely classifying problems into complexity classes - we also study their time complexity. This is achieved by replacing standard complexity-theoretic assumptions (such as P not equal NP) with the exponential time hypothesis (ETH). This enables us to analyse, for instance, the performance of the h(+) heuristic and obtain general trade-off results that correlate approximability bounds with bounds on time complexity.

Causal graphs are widely used to analyze the complexity of planning problems. Many tractable classes have been identified with their aid and state-of-the-art heuristics have been derived by exploiting such classes. In particular, Katz and Keyder have studied causal graphs that are hourglasses (which is a generalization of forks and inverted-forks) and shown that the corresponding cost-optimal planning problem is tractable under certain restrictions. We continue this work by studying polytrees (which is a generalization of hourglasses) under similar restrictions. We prove tractability of cost-optimal planning by providing an algorithm based on a novel notion of variable isomorphism. Our algorithm also sheds light on the k-consistency procedure for identifying unsolvable planning instances. We speculate that this may, at least partially, explain why merge-and-shrink heuristics have been successful for recognizing unsolvable instances.

There has been a tremendous advance in domain-independent planning over the past decades, and planners have become increasingly efficient at finding plans. However, this has not been paired by any corresponding improvement in detecting unsolvable instances. Such instances are obviously important but largely neglected in planning. In other areas, such as constraint solving and model checking, much effort has been spent on devising methods for detecting unsolvability. We introduce a method for detecting unsolvable planning instances that is loosely based on consistency checking in constraint programming. Our method balances completeness against efficiency through a parameter k: the algorithm identifies more unsolvable instances but takes more time for increasing values of k. We present empirical data for our algorithm and some standard planners on a number of unsolvable instances, demonstrating that our method can be very efficient where the planners fail to detect unsolvability within reasonable resource bounds. We observe that planners based on the h^m heuristic or pattern databases are better than other planners for detecting unsolvability. This is not a coincidence since there are similarities (but also significant differences) between our algorithm and these two heuristic methods.