In many usage scenarios of AI Planning technology, users will want not just a plan π but an explanation of the space of possible plans, justifying π. In particular, in oversubscription planning where not all goals can be achieved, users may ask why a conjunction A of goals is not achieved by π. We propose to answer this kind of question with the goal conjunctions B excluded by A, i. e., that could not be achieved if A were to be enforced. We formalize this approach in terms of plan-property dependencies, where plan properties are propositional formulas over the goals achieved by a plan, and dependencies are entailment relations in plan space. We focus on entailment relations of the form ∧g∈A g ⇒ ⌝ ∧g∈B g, and devise analysis techniques globally identifying all such relations, or locally identifying the implications of a single given plan property (user question) ∧g∈A g. We show how, via compilation, one can analyze dependencies between a richer form of plan properties, specifying formulas over action subsets touched by the plan. We run comprehensive experiments on adapted IPC benchmarks, and find that the suggested analyses are reasonably feasible at the global level, and become significantly more effective at the local level.

Justifying a plan to a user requires answering questions about the space of possible plans. Recent work introduced a framework for doing so via plan-property dependencies, where plan properties p are Boolean functions on plans, and p entails q if all plans that satisfy p also satisfy q. We extend this work in two ways. First, we introduce new algorithms for computing plan-property dependencies, leveraging symbolic search and devising pruning methods for this purpose. Second, while the properties p were previously limited to goal facts and so-called action-set (AS) properties, here we extend them to LTL. Our new algorithms vastly outperform the previous ones, and our methods for LTL cause little overhead on AS properties.

Recent work suggests to explain trade-offs between soft-goals in terms of their conflicts, i.e., minimal unsolvable soft-goal subsets. But this does not explain the conflicts themselves: Why can a given set of soft-goals not be jointly achieved? Here we approach that question in terms of the underlying constraints on plans in the task at hand, namely resource availability and time windows. In this context, a natural form of explanation for a soft-goal conflict is a minimal constraint relaxation under which the conflict disappears (``if the deadline was 1 hour later, it would work''). We explore algorithms for computing such explanations. A baseline is to simply loop over all relaxed tasks and compute the conflicts for each separately. We improve over this by two algorithms that leverage information -- conflicts, reachable states -- across relaxed tasks. We show that these algorithms can exponentially outperform the baseline in theory, and we run experiments confirming that advantage in practice.

In classical planning as heuristic search, the guiding heuristic function is typically treated as a black box. While many heuristics support refinement operations, they are typically only used for its initialization before search, but further refinement during search could make use of additional information not available in the initial state. We explore online refinement for additive Cartesian abstraction heuristics. These abstractions are computed through counter-example guided abstraction refinement, which can be applied online as well to further improve the abstractions. We introduce three operations, refinement, merging, and reordering, which are combined to a converging online-refinement algorithm. We describe how online refinement can effectively be used in A* and evaluate our approach on the IPC benchmarks, where it outperforms offline-generated abstractions in many domains.

This paper studies a novel planning problem for multiple agents that cannot share holding resources, named OTIMAPP (Offline Time-Independent Multi-Agent Path Planning). Given a graph and a set of start-goal pairs, the problem consists in assigning a path to each agent such that every agent eventually reaches their goal without blocking each other, regardless of how the agents are being scheduled at runtime. The motivation stems from the nature of distributed environments that agents take actions fully asynchronous and have no knowledge about those exact timings of other actors. We present solution conditions, computational complexity, solvers, and robotic applications.

The trade-offs between different desirable plan properties -- e.g. PDDL temporal plan preferences -- are often difficult to understand. Recent work addresses this by iterative planning with explanations elucidating the dependencies between such plan properties. Users can ask questions of the form ``Why does the plan not satisfy property p?'', which are answered by ``Because then we would have to forego q''. It has been shown that such dependencies can be computed reasonably efficiently. But is this form of explanation actually useful for users? We run a large crowd-worker user study (N=100 in each of 3 domains) evaluating that question. To enable such a study in the first place, we contribute a Web-based platform for iterative planning with explanations, running in standard browsers. Comparing users with vs. without access to the explanations, we find that the explanations enable users to identify better trade-offs between the plan properties, indicating an improved understanding of the planning task.

Temporal plan preferences are natural and important in a variety of applications. Yet users often find it difficult to formalize their preferences. Here we explore the possibility to learn preferences from example plans. Focusing on one preference at a time, the user is asked to annotate examples as good/bad. We leverage prior work on LTL formula learning to extract a preference from these examples. We conduct an empirical study of this approach in an oversubscription planning context, using hidden target formulas to emulate the user preferences. We explore four different methods for generating example plans, and evaluate performance as a function of domain and formula size. Overall, we find that reasonable-size target formulas can often be learned effectively.

In real-time planning, the planner must select the next action within a fixed time bound. Because a complete plan may not have been found, the selected action might not lead to a goal and the agent may need to return to its current state. To preserve completeness, real-time search methods incorporate learning, in which heuristic values are updated. Previous work in real-time search has used table-based heuristics, in which the values of states are updated individually. In this paper, we explore the use of abstraction-based heuristics. By refining the abstraction on-line, we can update the values of multiple states, including ones the agent has not yet generated. We test this idea empirically using Cartesian abstractions in the Fast Downward planner. Results on various benchmarks, including the sliding tile puzzle and several IPC domains, indicate that the approach can improve performance compared to traditional heuristic updating. This work brings abstraction refinement, a powerful technique from offline planning, into the real-time setting.