Translation-based approaches to planning allow for solving problems in complex and expressive formalisms via the means of highly efficient solvers for simpler formalisms. To be effective, these translations have to be constructed appropriately. The current existing translation of the highly expressive formalism of HTN planning into the more simple formalism of classical planning is not on par with the performance of current dedicated HTN planners. With our contributions in this paper, we close this gap: we describe new versions of the translation that reach the performance of state-of-the-art dedicated HTN planners. We present new translation techniques both for the special case of totally-ordered HTNs as well as for the general partially-ordered case. In the latter, we show that our new translation generates only linearly many actions, while the previous encoding generates and exponential number of actions.

Several hierarchical planning systems feature a rich level of language features making them capable of expressing real-world problems. One such feature that's used by several current planning systems is causal links, which are used to track search progress. The formalism combining Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planning with these links known from Partial Order Causal Link (POCL) planning is often referred to as hybrid planning. In this paper we study the computational complexity of such hybrid planning problems. More specifically, we provide missing membership results to existing hardness proofs and thereby provide tight complexity bounds for all known subclasses of hierarchical planning problems. We also re-visit and correct a result from the literature for plan verification showing that it remains NP-complete even in the absence of a task hierarchy.

The research in hierarchical planning has made considerable progress in the last few years. Many recent systems do not rely on hand-tailored advice anymore to find solutions, but are supposed to be domain-independent systems that come with sophisticated solving techniques. In principle, this development would make the comparison between systems easier (because the domains are not tailored to a single system anymore) and – much more important – also the integration into other systems, because the modeling process is less tedious (due to the lack of advice) and there is no (or less) commitment to a certain planning system the model is created for. However, these advantages are destroyed by the lack of a common input language and feature set supported by the different systems. In this paper, we propose an extension to PDDL, the description language used in non-hierarchical planning, to the needs of hierarchical planning systems.

Hierarchical planning has attracted renewed interest in the last couple of years, which led to numerous novel formalisms, problem classes, and theoretical investigations. Yet it is important to differentiate between the various formalisms and problem classes, since they show -- sometimes fundamental -- differences with regard to their expressivity and computational complexity: Some of them can be regarded equivalent to non-hierarchical formalisms while others are clearly more expressive. We survey the most important hierarchical problem classes and explain their differences and similarities. We furthermore give pointers to some of the best-known planning systems capable of solving the respective problem classes.

Heuristics serve as a powerful tool in modern domain-independent planning (DIP) systems by providing critical guidance during the search for high-quality solutions. However, they have not been broadly used with hierarchical planning techniques, which are more expressive and tend to scale better in complex domains by exploiting additional domain-specific knowledge. Complicating matters, we show that for Hierarchical Goal Network (HGN) planning, a goal-based hierarchical planning formalism that we focus on in this paper, any poly-time heuristic that is derived from a delete-relaxation DIP heuristic has to make some relaxation of the hierarchical semantics. To address this, we present a principled framework for incorporating DIP heuristics into HGN planning using a simple relaxation of the HGN semantics we call Hierarchy-Relaxation. This framework allows for computing heuristic estimates of HGN problems using any DIP heuristic in an admissibility-preserving manner. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach by using the LMCut heuristic to guide an optimal HGN planner. Our empirical results with three benchmark domains demonstrate that simultaneously leveraging hierarchical knowledge and heuristic guidance substantially improves planning performance.

There is an impressive body of work on developing heuristics and other reasoning algorithms to guide search in optimal and anytime planning algorithms for classical planning. However, very little effort has been directed towards developing analogous techniques to guide search towards high-quality solutions in hierarchical planning formalisms like HTN planning, which allows using additional domain-specific procedural control knowledge. In lieu of such techniques, this control knowledge often needs to provide the necessary search guidance to the planning algorithm, which imposes a substantial burden on the domain author and can yield brittle or error-prone domain models. We address this gap by extending recent work on a new hierarchical goal-based planning formalism called Hierarchical Goal Network (HGN) Planning to develop the Hierarchically-Optimal Goal Decomposition Planner (HOpGDP), an HGN planning algorithm that computes hierarchically-optimal plans. HOpGDP is guided by $h_{HL}$, a new HGN planning heuristic that extends existing admissible landmark-based heuristics from classical planning to compute admissible cost estimates for HGN planning problems. Our experimental evaluation across three benchmark planning domains shows that HOpGDP compares favorably to both optimal classical planners due to its ability to use domain-specific procedural knowledge, and a blind-search version of HOpGDP due to the search guidance provided by $h_{HL}$.

Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) planning with task insertion (TIHTN planning) is a variant of HTN planning. In HTN planning, the only means to alter task networks is to decompose compound tasks. In TIHTN planning, tasks may also be inserted directly. In this paper we provide tight complexity bounds for TIHTN planning along two axis: whether variables are allowed and whether methods must be totally ordered.

For HTN planning, we formally characterize and classify four kinds of problem spaces in which each node represents a planning problem or subproblem. Two of the problem spaces are searched by current HTN planning algorithms; the other two problem spaces are new.This enables us to provide:Sufficient (and in one case, necessary) conditions for finiteness of each kind of problem space. The conditions can be evaluated up-front to see if an HTN planning problem is finite.Loop-detection tests that can be used in HTN planners to ensure termination when the problem space is finite.A way to compute the correct value for an upper-bound parameter in an HTN-to-PDDL translation algorithm published in IJCAI-2009.Planning algorithms that utilize the two new problem spaces to guarantee termination on broader classes of planning problems than previous HTN planning algorithms.