arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv cs/9706101cs.AI
收藏

偏序规划的缺陷选择策略

Flaw Selection Strategies for Partial-Order Planning

M. E. Pollack, D. Joslin, M. Paolucci

摘要:

最近的几项研究比较了偏序因果链(POCL)规划的替代缺陷选择策略的相对效率。我们回顾了这些文献,并提出了新的实验结果,概括了早期的工作,并解释了其中的一些差异。特别是,我们描述了最小成本缺陷修复(LCFR)的策略,并分析了Joslin和Pollack(1994),并比较它与其他策略,包括Gerevini和Schubert(1996)的ZLIFO策略。LCFR和ZLIFO在减少POCL规划中搜索空间大小的最有效方法方面有很大的不同,而且显然是相互冲突的。我们解决这个冲突,认为Gerevini和Schubert归因于他们的ZLIFO策略的LIFO组件的大部分好处更好地归因于其他原因。我们表明,对于许多问题,一个策略,结合成本最低的缺陷选择与可分离的威胁的延迟将有效地减少搜索空间的大小,并会这样做,而不会有过多的计算开销。虽然这样的策略,从而提供了一个很好的默认值,我们也表明,某些领域的特点可能会降低其有效性。

英文摘要:

Several recent studies have compared the relative efficiency of alternative flaw selection strategies for partial-order causal link (POCL) planning. We review this literature, and present new experimental results that generalize the earlier work and explain some of the discrepancies in it. In particular, we describe the Least-Cost Flaw Repair (LCFR) strategy developed and analyzed by Joslin and Pollack (1994), and compare it with other strategies, including Gerevini and Schubert's (1996) ZLIFO strategy. LCFR and ZLIFO make very different, and apparently conflicting claims about the most effective way to reduce search-space size in POCL planning. We resolve this conflict, arguing that much of the benefit that Gerevini and Schubert ascribe to the LIFO component of their ZLIFO strategy is better attributed to other causes. We show that for many problems, a strategy that combines least-cost flaw selection with the delay of separable threats will be effective in reducing search-space size, and will do so without excessive computational overhead. Although such a strategy thus provides a good default, we also show that certain domain characteristics may reduce its effectiveness.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑