Salomé Eriksson

Landmarks are a core component of LAMA, a state-of-the-art satisficing planning system based on heuristic search. It uses landmarks to estimate the goal distance by summing up the costs of their cheapest achievers. This procedure ignores synergies between different landmarks: The cost of an action is counted multiple times if it is the cheapest achiever of several landmarks. Common admissible landmark heuristics tackle this problem by underapproximating the cost of a minimum hitting set of the landmark achievers. We suggest to overapproximate it by computing suboptimal hitting sets instead if admissibility is not a requirement. As our heuristics consider synergies between landmarks, we further propose to relax certain restrictions LAMA imposes on the number of landmarks and synergies between them. Our experimental evaluation shows a reasonable increase in the number of landmarks that leads to better guidance when used with our new heuristics.

Landmarks are a core component of LAMA, a state-of-the-art satisficing planning system based on heuristic search. It uses landmarks to estimate the goal distance by summing up the costs of their cheapest achievers. This procedure ignores synergies between different landmarks: The cost of an action is counted multiple times if it is the cheapest achiever of several landmarks. Common admissible landmark heuristics tackle this problem by underapproximating the cost of a minimum hitting set of the landmark achievers. We suggest to overapproximate it by computing suboptimal hitting sets instead if admissibility is not a requirement. As our heuristics consider synergies between landmarks, we further propose to relax certain restrictions LAMA imposes on the number of landmarks and synergies between them. Our experimental evaluation shows a reasonable increase in the number of landmarks that leads to better guidance when used with our new heuristics.

Combinatorial reconfiguration studies how one solution of a combinatorial problem can be transformed into another. The transformation can only make small local changes and may not leave the solution space. An important example is the independent set reconfiguration (ISR) problem, where an independent set of a graph (a subset of its vertices without edges between them) has to be transformed into another one by a sequence of modifications that remove a vertex or add another that is not adjacent to any vertex in the set. The 1st Combinatorial Reconfiguration Challenge (CoRe Challenge 2022) was a competition focused on the ISR problem. Our team participated with two solvers that model the ISR problem as a planning problem and employ different planning techniques for solving it. They successfully competed in the challenge and were awarded 4 first, 3 second, and 3 third places across 9 tracks. In this work, we show how to model ISR problems as planning tasks and describe the planning techniques used in our solvers. For a fair comparison of ISR approaches, we re-run the entire competition under equal computational conditions. Besides showcasing the success of planning technology, we hope that this work will create a cross-fertilization of the two research fields.

Algorithms are usually shown to be correct on paper, but bugs in their implementations can still lead to incorrect results. In the case of classical planning, it is fortunately straightforward to check whether a computed plan is correct. For optimal planning, however, plans are additionally required to have minimal cost, which is significantly more difficult to verify. While some domain-specific approaches exists, we lack a general tool to verify optimality for arbitrary problems. We bridge this gap and introduce two approaches based on the principle of certifying algorithms, which provide a computer-verifiable certificate of correctness alongside their answer. We show that both approaches are sound and complete, analyze whether they can be generated and verified efficiently, and show how to apply them to concrete planning algorithms. The experimental evaluation shows that verifying optimality comes with a cost, but is still practically feasible. Furthermore, it confirms that the tested planner configurations provide optimal plans on the given instances, as all certificates were verified successfully.

The computation of high-quality landmarks and orderings for heuristic state-space search is often prohibitively expensive to be performed in every generated state. Computing information only for the initial state and progressing it from every state to its successors is a successful alternative, exploited for example in classical planning by the LAMA planner. We propose a general framework for using landmarks in any kind of best-first search. Its core component, the progression function, uses orderings and search history to determine which landmarks must still be achieved. We show that the progression function that is used in LAMA infers invalid information in the presence of reasonable orderings. We define a sound progression function that allows to exploit reasonable orderings in cost-optimal planning and show empirically that our new progression function is beneficial both in satisficing and optimal planning.

While the unsolvability IPC sparked a multitude of planners proficient in detecting unsolvable planning tasks, there are gaps where concise unsolvability arguments are known but no existing planner can capture them without prohibitive computational effort. One such example is the sliding tiles puzzle, where solvability can be decided in polynomial time with a parity argument. We introduce separating functions, which can prove that one state is unreachable from another, and show under what conditions a potential function over any nonzero ring is a separating function. We prove that we can compactly encode these conditions for potential functions over features that are pairs, and show in which cases we can efficiently synthesize functions satisfying these conditions. We experimentally evaluate a domain-independent algorithm that successfully synthesizes such separating functions from PDDL representations of the sliding tiles puzzle, the Lights Out puzzle, and Peg Solitaire.

While classical planning systems can usually detect if a task is unsolvable, only recent research introduced a way to verify such a claim. These methods have already been applied to a variety of explicit and symbolic search algorithms, but so far no planning technique based on SAT has been covered with them. We fill this gap by showing how property directed reachability can produce proofs while only minimally altering the framework by allowing to utilize certificates for unsolvable SAT queries within the proof. We additionally show that a variant of the algorithm that does not use SAT calls can produce proofs that fit into the existing framework without requiring any changes.

Classical planning tackles the problem of finding a sequence of actions that leads from an initial state to a goal. Over the last decades, planning systems have become significantly better at answering the question whether such a sequence exists by applying a variety of techniques which have become more and more complex. As a result, it has become nearly impossible to formally analyze whether a planning system is actually correct in its answers, and we need to rely on experimental evidence.

One way to increase trust is the concept of certifying algorithms, which provide a witness which justifies their answer and can be verified independently. When a planning system finds a solution to a problem, the solution itself is a witness, and we can verify it by simply applying it. But what if the planning system claims the task is unsolvable? So far there was no principled way of verifying this claim.

This thesis contributes two approaches to create witnesses for unsolvable planning tasks. Inductive certificates are based on the idea of invariants. They argue that the initial state is part of a set of states that we cannot leave and that contains no goal state. In our second approach, we define a proof system that proves in an incremental fashion that certain states cannot be part of a solution until it has proven that either the initial state or all goal states are such states.

Both approaches are complete in the sense that a witness exists for every unsolvable planning task, and can be verified efficiently (in respect to the size of the witness) by an independent verifier if certain criteria are met. To show their applicability to state-of-the-art planning techniques, we provide an extensive overview how these approaches can cover several search algorithms, heuristics and other techniques. Finally, we show with an experimental study that generating and verifying these explanations is not only theoretically possible but also practically feasible, thus making a first step towards fully certifying planning systems.

If a planning system outputs a solution for a given problem, it is simple to verify that the solution is valid. However, if a planner claims that a task is unsolvable, we currently have no choice but to trust the planner blindly. We propose a sound and complete class of certificates of unsolvability, which can be verified efficiently by an independent program. To highlight their practical use, we show how these certificates can be generated for a wide range of state-of-the-art planning techniques with only polynomial overhead for the planner.

While traditionally classical planning concentrated on finding plans for solvable tasks, detecting unsolvable instances has recently attracted increasing interest. To preclude wrong results, it is desirable that the planning system provides a certificate of unsolvability that can be independently verified. We propose a rule-based proof system for unsolvability where a proof establishes a knowledge base of verifiable basic statements and applies a set of derivation rules to infer the unsolvability of the task from these statements. We argue that this approach is more flexible than a recent proposal of inductive certificates of unsolvability and show how our proof system can be used for a wide range of planning techniques.

The plans that planning systems generate for solvable planning tasks are routinely verified by independent validation tools. For unsolvable planning tasks, no such validation capabilities currently exist. We describe a family of certificates of unsolvability for classical planning tasks that can be efficiently verified and are sufficiently general for a wide range of planning approaches including heuristic search with delete relaxation, critical-path, pattern database and linear merge-and-shrink heuristics, symbolic search with binary decision diagrams, and the Trapper algorithm for detecting dead ends. We also augmented a classical planning system with the ability to emit certificates of unsolvability and implemented a planner-independent certificate validation tool. Experiments show that the overhead for producing such certificates is tolerable and that their validation is practically feasible.

We suggest the use of linear temporal logic (LTL) for expressing declarative information about optimal solutions of search problems. We describe a general framework that associates LTLf formulas with search nodes in a heuristic search algorithm. Compared to previous approaches that integrate specific kinds of path information like landmarks into heuristic search, the approach is general, easy to prove correct and easy to integrate with other kinds of path information.