Planning Domain Model Acquisition from State Traces without Action Parameters

Overview

• This paper explores learning action models in STRIPS planning domains when the parameters of the actions are not provided.
• It defines two levels of trace quality based on the information available in the state traces.
• It presents algorithms for learning action models in each of these settings and evaluates them experimentally.

Plain English Explanation

In the field of automated planning, researchers often work with STRIPS domain models, which describe the actions an agent can take and the effects those actions have on the world. Traditionally, when learning these domain models from data, researchers have assumed that the names and parameters of the actions are already known. This means their main task is to figure out the preconditions and effects of the given actions.

This paper explores a more challenging scenario, where the parameters of the actions are not provided. It defines two levels of trace quality based on how much information is given:

1. Level 1 (L1): The state traces are labeled with action names, so we know the number and names of the actions, but we don't know the number or types of parameters.
2. Level 2 (L2): The state traces are labeled with both action names and the objects that serve as parameters for the grounded actions. Here we still need to figure out the types of parameters in the learned actions.

The paper presents algorithms for learning action models in each of these settings and compares them to the state-of-the-art tool FAMA on a variety of planning benchmarks. The results show that the new algorithms are faster, can handle larger inputs, and produce action models that are more similar to the reference models.

Technical Explanation

The paper tackles the problem of learning STRIPS domain models from state traces when the parameters of the actions are not provided. This is a more challenging setting compared to previous approaches, which assumed the names and parameters of the actions were known.

The authors define two levels of trace quality:

1. Level 1 (L1): The state traces are labeled with action names, so the number and names of the actions can be deduced, but the number and types of parameters are unknown.
2. Level 2 (L2): The state traces are labeled with both action names and the objects that serve as parameters for the grounded actions. Here the types of parameters in the learned actions still need to be deduced.

For each level, the paper presents an algorithm for learning the action models. The L1 algorithm first identifies the actions and their parameters by analyzing the state changes in the traces. It then uses this information to infer the preconditions and effects of the actions. The L2 algorithm builds on this, using the provided parameter information to further refine the types of the action parameters.

The algorithms are evaluated on a large collection of IPC planning benchmarks and compared to the state-of-the-art tool FAMA. The results show that the new algorithms are faster, can handle larger inputs, and produce action models that are more similar to the reference models.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents an important advance in the field of automated planning by addressing the more challenging scenario where the parameters of the actions are not provided. This is a realistic setting that can arise in many real-world applications, so the ability to learn accurate domain models in this context is valuable.

One potential limitation of the approach is that it relies on the availability of high-quality state traces, which may not always be easy to obtain in practice. The authors acknowledge this and suggest that incorporating additional background knowledge or using active learning techniques could be a fruitful direction for future research.

Another area for further investigation is the scalability of the algorithms, especially for larger and more complex planning domains. While the experiments demonstrate the superior performance of the new algorithms compared to FAMA, it would be interesting to see how they fare on even larger and more challenging benchmarks.

Overall, this paper makes a significant contribution by expanding the capabilities of STRIPS domain model acquisition and paves the way for more realistic and practical planning systems. The technical explanations are clear and the experimental results are compelling, suggesting that this work is a valuable addition to the field.

Conclusion

This paper presents novel algorithms for learning STRIPS domain models from state traces when the parameters of the actions are not provided. By defining two levels of trace quality and developing tailored algorithms for each, the authors have made an important advancement in the field of automated planning.

The experimental evaluation shows that the new algorithms outperform the state-of-the-art tool FAMA in terms of speed, scalability, and the accuracy of the learned action models. This suggests that these techniques could be valuable for building more robust and practical planning systems, particularly in real-world scenarios where the full details of the actions may not be known a priori.

While the paper highlights some potential limitations and areas for future research, it represents a significant step forward in the challenging task of learning domain models from limited information. By making these advances, the authors have contributed to the ongoing efforts to develop more powerful and versatile planning systems that can adapt to a wide range of real-world challenges.