Search

Goal instructions for autonomous AI agents cannot assume that objects have unique names. Instead, objects in goals must be referred to by providing suitable descriptions. However, this raises problems in both classical planning and generalized planning. The standard approach to handling existentially quantified goals in classical planning involves compiling them into a DNF formula that encodes all possible variable bindings and adding dummy actions to map each DNF term into the new, dummy goal. This preprocessing is exponential in the number of variables. In generalized planning, the problem is different: even if general policies can deal with any initial situation and goal, executing a general policy requires the goal to be grounded to define a value for the policy features. The problem of grounding goals, namely finding the objects to bind the goal variables, is subtle: it is a generalization of classical planning, which is a special case when there are no goal variables to bind, and constraint reasoning, which is a special case when there are no actions. In this work, we address the goal grounding problem with a novel supervised learning approach. A GNN architecture, trained to predict the cost of partially quantified goals over small domain instances is tested on larger instances involving more objects and different quantified goals. The proposed architecture is evaluated experimentally over several planning domains where generalization is tested along several dimensions including the number of goal variables and objects that can bind such variables. The scope of the approach is also discussed in light of the known relationship between GNNs and C2 logics., Comment: 11 pages, Accepted at the 21st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2024) in the Reasoning, Learning, and Decision Making track

State symmetries play an important role in planning and generalized planning. In the first case, state symmetries can be used to reduce the size of the search; in the second, to reduce the size of the training set. In the case of general planning, however, it is also critical to distinguish non-symmetric states, i.e., states that represent non-isomorphic relational structures. However, while the language of first-order logic distinguishes non-symmetric states, the languages and architectures used to represent and learn general policies do not. In particular, recent approaches for learning general policies use state features derived from description logics or learned via graph neural networks (GNNs) that are known to be limited by the expressive power of C_2, first-order logic with two variables and counting. In this work, we address the problem of detecting symmetries in planning and generalized planning and use the results to assess the expressive requirements for learning general policies over various planning domains. For this, we map planning states to plain graphs, run off-the-shelf algorithms to determine whether two states are isomorphic with respect to the goal, and run coloring algorithms to determine if C_2 features computed logically or via GNNs distinguish non-isomorphic states. Symmetry detection results in more effective learning, while the failure to detect non-symmetries prevents general policies from being learned at all in certain domains., Comment: Accepted at the 21st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2024) in the Reasoning, Learning, and Decision Making track

GNN-based approaches for learning general policies across planning domains are limited by the expressive power of $C_2$, namely; first-order logic with two variables and counting. This limitation can be overcomed by transitioning to $k$-GNNs, for $k=3$, wherein object embeddings are substituted with triplet embeddings. Yet, while $3$-GNNs have the expressive power of $C_3$, unlike $1$- and $2$-GNNs that are confined to $C_2$, they require quartic time for message exchange and cubic space for embeddings, rendering them impractical. In this work, we introduce a parameterized version of relational GNNs. When $t$ is infinity, R-GNN[$t$] approximates $3$-GNNs using only quadratic space for embeddings. For lower values of $t$, such as $t=1$ and $t=2$, R-GNN[$t$] achieves a weaker approximation by exchanging fewer messages, yet interestingly, often yield the $C_3$ features required in several planning domains. Furthermore, the new R-GNN[$t$] architecture is the original R-GNN architecture with a suitable transformation applied to the input states only. Experimental results illustrate the clear performance gains of R-GNN[$1$] and R-GNN[$2$] over plain R-GNNs, and also over edge transformers that also approximate $3$-GNNs., Comment: Submitted to IJCAI 2024

We consider the problem of learning generalized policies for classical planning domains using graph neural networks from small instances represented in lifted STRIPS. The problem has been considered before but the proposed neural architectures are complex and the results are often mixed. In this work, we use a simple and general GNN architecture and aim at obtaining crisp experimental results and a deeper understanding: either the policy greedy in the learned value function achieves close to 100% generalization over instances larger than those used in training, or the failure must be understood, and possibly fixed, logically. For this, we exploit the relation established between the expressive power of GNNs and the $C_{2}$ fragment of first-order logic (namely, FOL with 2 variables and counting quantifiers). We find for example that domains with general policies that require more expressive features can be solved with GNNs once the states are extended with suitable "derived atoms" encoding role compositions and transitive closures that do not fit into $C_{2}$. The work follows the GNN approach for learning optimal general policies in a supervised fashion (Stahlberg, Bonet, Geffner, 2022); but the learned policies are no longer required to be optimal (which expands the scope, as many planning domains do not have general optimal policies) and are learned without supervision. Interestingly, value-based reinforcement learning methods that aim to produce optimal policies, do not always yield policies that generalize, as the goals of optimality and generality are in conflict in domains where optimal planning is NP-hard., Comment: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-22)

It has been recently shown that general policies for many classical planning domains can be expressed and learned in terms of a pool of features defined from the domain predicates using a description logic grammar. At the same time, most description logics correspond to a fragment of $k$-variable counting logic ($C_k$) for $k=2$, that has been shown to provide a tight characterization of the expressive power of graph neural networks. In this work, we make use of these results to understand the power and limits of using graph neural networks (GNNs) for learning optimal general policies over a number of tractable planning domains where such policies are known to exist. For this, we train a simple GNN in a supervised manner to approximate the optimal value function $V^{*}(s)$ of a number of sample states $s$. As predicted by the theory, it is observed that general optimal policies are obtained in domains where general optimal value functions can be defined with $C_2$ features but not in those requiring more expressive $C_3$ features. In addition, it is observed that the features learned are in close correspondence with the features needed to express $V^{*}$ in closed form. The theory and the analysis of the domains let us understand the features that are actually learned as well as those that cannot be learned in this way, and let us move in a principled manner from a combinatorial optimization approach to learning general policies to a potentially, more robust and scalable approach based on deep learning., Comment: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS-22)