Universal Planning: An (Almost) Universally Bad Idea
نویسنده
چکیده
To present a sharp criticism of the approach known as universal planning, I begin by giving a precise definition of it. The key idea in this work is that an agent is working to achieve some goal and that to determine what to do next in the pursuit of this goal, the agent finds its current situation in a large table that prescribes the correct action to take. Of course, the action suggested by the table might simply be, “Think about your current situation and decide what to do next.” This method is, in many ways, representative of the conventional approach to planning; however, what distinguishes universal plans from conventional plans is that the action suggested by a universal plan is always a primitive one that the agent can execute immediately (Agre and Chapman 1987; Drummond 1988; Kaelbling 1988; Nilsson 1989; Rosenschein and Kaelbling 1986; Schoppers 1987). Definition 1.1. A universal plan is an arbitrary function from the set of possible situations S into the set of primitive actions A. I assume throughout this article that some fixed universal plan u describes the intended behavior of the agent being constructed; the question that I want to investigate is whether it is practical to provide the agent with an explicit description of u in its entirety as opposed to some method (such as “invoke the planner”) by which u(s) can be computed if the agent finds itself in situation s. Given Definition 1.1, I can draw distinctions between the intentions of the various authors working with universal plans. Schoppers, who coined the term universal plan, seems to feel that it will be possible to equip an agent with a completely accurate description of a universal plan for acting in its particular environment. However, other authors (Agre and Chapman 1987; Drummond 1988; Nilsson 1989) concede that only some approximation to the universal plan u will be available. Rosenschein and Kaelbling (Rosenschein and Kaelbling 1986; Kaelbling 1988) seem to agree with Schoppers, although I argue that this apparent agreement misrepresents their actual beliefs. Another choice needs to be made if an approximate universal plan is used. Agre and Articles
منابع مشابه
Penguins Can Make Cake
Until quite recently, it was taken for granted in AI-and cognitive science more broadlythat activity resulted from the creation and execution of plans. In 1985, several researchers, including myself, independently realized that plans and planning are not necessary-or necessarily useful-in activity. Since this time, a number of alternatives have been proposed. In this issue of AI Magazine, Matth...
متن کاملXii: Planning with Universal Quantication and Incomplete Information
Universal quantication in a planning language is a powerful mechanism for representing actions and goals that involve multiple objects. Unfortunately, dealing with universal quanti-cation in the presence of incomplete information is dicult, since knowing that a goal has been satised for all members of some set generally requires knowing all members of the set. Since a planner that has an incomp...
متن کاملUniversal Quantification in a Constraint-Based Planner
Constraints and universal quantification axe both useful in planning, but handling universally quantified constraints presents some noveI challenges. We present a general approach to proving the validity of universally quantified constraints. The approach essentially consists of checking that the constraint is not violated for all members of the universe. We show that this approach can sometime...
متن کاملUniversally Quantified Constraints for Planning
In SATPLAN [4] a valid plan is encoded as a satisfying assignment of a set of propositional clauses. Unfortunately, the number of clauses is often impractically large. Even using clever, but arguably unnatural, encodings [3] can still give too many clauses. The origin of the size difficulty is simple. Planning encodings are naturally written in terms of universally quantified “lifted” clauses s...
متن کاملUniversally bad integers and the 2 - adics
In his 1964 paper, de Bruijn (Math. Comp. 18 (1964) 537) called a pair ða; bÞ of positive odd integers good, if Z 1⁄4 aS~2bS; where S is the set of nonnegative integers whose 4-adic expansion has only 0’s and 1’s, otherwise he called the pair ða; bÞ bad. Using the 2-adic integers we obtain a characterization of all bad pairs. A positive odd integer u is universally bad if ðua; bÞ is bad for all...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- AI Magazine
دوره 10 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1989