While most heuristics studied in heuristic search depend only on the state, some accumulate information during search and thus also depend on the search history. Multiple existing approaches use such dynamic heuristics in A*-like algorithms and appeal to classic results for A* to show that they return optimal solutions. However, doing so disregards the intricacies of searching with a mutable heuristic. We treat dynamic heuristics formally and propose a framework that defines how the information dynamic heuristics rely on can be modified. We use these transformations in a generic search algorithm and an instantiation that models A* with dynamic heuristics, allowing us to provide general conditions for optimality. We show that existing approaches fit our framework and apply our results. Doing so for future applications of dynamic heuristics may simplify formal arguments for optimality.

One of the strongest approaches for optimal classical planning is A* search with heuristics based on abstractions of the planning task. Abstraction heuristics are well studied in planning formalisms without conditional effects such as SAS+. However, conditional effects are crucial to model many planning tasks compactly. In this paper, we focus on *factored* tasks which allow a specific form of conditional effect, where effects on variable x can only depend on the value of x. We generalize projections, domain abstractions, Cartesian abstractions and the counterexample-guided abstraction refinement method to this formalism. While merge-and-shrink already covers factored task in theory, we provide an implementation that does so. In our experiments, we compare these abstraction-based heuristics to other heuristics supporting conditional effects, as well as symbolic search. On our new benchmark set of factored tasks, pattern database heuristics solve the most problems, followed by symbolic approaches on par with domain abstractions. The more general Cartesian abstractions fall behind in terms of coverage but usually solve problems the fastest among all tested approaches. The generality of merge-and-shrink abstractions does not seem to be beneficial for these factored tasks.

We introduce transition-counting constraints as a principled tool to formalize constraints that must hold in every solution of a transition system. We then show how to obtain transition landmark constraints from abstraction cuts. Transition landmarks dominate operator landmarks in theory but require solving a linear program that is prohibitively large in practice. We compare different constraints that project away transition-counting variables and then further relax the constraint. For one important special case, we provide a lossless projection. We finally discuss efficient data structures to derive cuts from abstractions and store them in a way that avoids repeated computation in every state. We compare the resulting heuristics both theoretically and on benchmarks from the international planning competition.

Landmarks are a core component of LAMA, a state-of-the-art satisficing planning system based on heuristic search. It uses landmarks to estimate the goal distance by summing up the costs of their cheapest achievers. This procedure ignores synergies between different landmarks: The cost of an action is counted multiple times if it is the cheapest achiever of several landmarks. Common admissible landmark heuristics tackle this problem by underapproximating the cost of a minimum hitting set of the landmark achievers. We suggest to overapproximate it by computing suboptimal hitting sets instead if admissibility is not a requirement. As our heuristics consider synergies between landmarks, we further propose to relax certain restrictions LAMA imposes on the number of landmarks and synergies between them. Our experimental evaluation shows a reasonable increase in the number of landmarks that leads to better guidance when used with our new heuristics.

In classical planning, the aim is to find a sequence of deterministic actions leading from the initial to a goal state. In this work, we consider the scenario where a party who knows the solution to a planning task, called the prover, wants to convince a second party, the verifier, that it has the solution without revealing any information about the solution itself. This is relevant in domains where privacy is important, for example when plans contain sensitive information or when the solution should not be revealed upfront. We achieve this by introducing a zero-knowledge protocol for plan existence. By restricting ourselves to tasks with polynomially-bounded plan length, we are able to construct a protocol that can be run efficiently by both the prover and verifier. The resulting protocol does not rely on any reduction, has a constant number of rounds, and runs in time polynomial in the size of the task.