Oversubscription planning (OSP) is the problem of finding plans that maximize the utility value of their end state while staying within a specified cost bound. Recently, it has been shown that OSP problems can be reformulated as classical planning problems with multiple cost functions but no utilities. Here we take advantage of this reformulation to show that OSP problems can be solved optimally using the A* search algorithm, in contrast to previous approaches that have used variations on branch-and-bound search. This allows many powerful techniques developed for classical planning to be applied to OSP problems. We also introduce novel bound-sensitive heuristics, which are able to reason about the primary cost of a solution while taking into account secondary cost functions and bounds, to provide superior guidance compared to heuristics that do not take these bounds into account. We propose two such bound-sensitive variants of existing classical planning heuristics, and show experimentally that the resulting search is significantly more informed than with comparable heuristics that do not consider bounds.

Search algorithms such as LAO* and LRTDP coupled with admissible heuristics are widely used methods for optimal probabilistic planning. Their effectiveness depends on the degree to which heuristics are able to approximate the optimal cost of a state. Most common domain-independent heuristics, however, rely on determinization, and ignore the probabilities associated with different effects of actions. Here, we present a method for decomposing a probabilistic planning problem into subproblems by constraining possible action outcomes. Admissible heuristics evaluated for each subproblem can then be combined via a weighted sum to obtain an admissible heuristic for the original problem that takes into account a limited amount of probabilistic information. We use this approach to derive new admissible heuristics for probabilistic planning, and show that for some problems they are significantly more informative than existing heuristics, leading to up to an order of magnitude speedups in the time to converge to an optimal policy.

Tractability analysis in terms of the causal graphs of planning problems has emerged as an important area of research in recent years, leading to new methods for the derivation of domain-independent heuristics (Katz and Domshlak 2010). Here we continue this work, extending our knowledge of the frontier between tractable and NP-complete fragments. We close some gaps left in previous work, and introduce novel causal graph fragments that we call the hourglass and semifork, for which under certain additional assumptions optimal planning is in P. We show that relaxing any one of the restrictions required for this tractability leads to NP-complete problems. Our results are of both theoretical and practical interest, as these fragments can be used in existing frameworks to derive new abstraction heuristics. Before they can be used, however, a number of practical issues must be addressed. We discuss these issues and propose some solutions.

Soft goals extend the classical model of planning with a simple model of preferences. The best plans are then not the ones with least cost but the ones with maximum utility, where the utility of a plan is the sum of the utilities of the soft goals achieved minus the plan cost. Finding plans with high utility appears to involve two linked problems: choosing a subset of soft goals to achieve and finding a low-cost plan to achieve them. New search algorithms and heuristics have been developed for planning with soft goals, and a new track has been introduced in the International Planning Competition (IPC) to test their performance. In this note, we show however that these extensions are not needed: soft goals do not increase the expressive power of the basic model of planning with action costs, as they can easily be compiled away. We apply this compilation to the problems of the net-benefit track of the most recent IPC, and show that optimal and satisficing cost-based planners do better on the compiled problems than optimal and satisficing net-benefit planners on the original problems with explicit soft goals. Furthermore, we show that penalties, or negative preferences expressing conditions to avoid, can also be compiled away using a similar idea.

We introduce a simple variation of the additive heuristic used in the HSP planner that combines the benefits of the original additive heuristic, namely its mathematical formulation and its ability to handle non-uniform action costs, with the benefits of the relaxed planning graph heuristic used in FF, namely its compatibility with the highly effective enforced hill climbing search along with its ability to identify helpful actions. We implement a planner similar to FF except that it uses relaxed plans obtained from the additive heuristic rather than those obtained from the relaxed planning graph. We then evaluate the resulting planner in problems where action costs are not uniform and plans with smaller overall cost (as opposed to length) are preferred, where it is shown to compare well with cost-sensitive planners such as SGPlan, Sapa, and LPG. We also consider a further variation of the additive heuristic, where symbolic labels representing action sets are propagated rather than numbers, and show that this scheme can be further developed to construct heuristics that can take delete-information into account.