Abstraction has been used in combinatorial search and action planning from the very beginning of AI. Many different methods and formalisms for state abstraction have been proposed in the literature, but they have been designed from various points of view and with varying purposes. Hence, these methods have been notoriously difficult to analyse and compare in a structured way. In order to improve upon this situation, we present a coherent and flexible framework for modelling abstraction (and abstraction-like) methods based on graph transformations. The usefulness of the framework is demonstrated by applying it to problems in both search and planning. We model six different abstraction methods from the planning literature and analyse their intrinsic properties. We show how to capture many search abstraction concepts (such as avoiding backtracking between levels) and how to put them into a broader context. We also use the framework to identify and investigate connections between refinement and heuristics—two concepts that have usually been considered as unrelated in the literature. This provides new insights into various topics, e.g. Valtorta's theorem and spurious states. We finally extend the framework with composition of transformations to accommodate for abstraction hierarchies, and other multi-level concepts. We demonstrate the latter by modelling and analysing the merge-and-shrink abstraction method.

Cost-optimal planning is a very well-studied topic within planning, and it has proven to be computationally hard both in theory and in practice. Since cost-optimal planning is an optimisation problem, it is natural to analyse it through the lens of approximation. An important reason for studying cost-optimal planning is heuristic search; heuristic functions that guide the search in planning can often be viewed as algorithms solving or approximating certain optimisation problems. Many heuristic functions (such as the ubiquitious h+ heuristic) are based on delete relaxation, which ignores negative effects of actions. Planning for instances where the actions have no negative effects is often referred to as monotone planning. The aim of this article is to analyse the approximability of cost-optimal monotone planning, and thus the performance of relevant heuristic functions. Our findings imply that it may be beneficial to study these kind of problems within the framework of parameterised complexity and we initiate work in this direction.

Complexity analysis based on the causal graphs of planning instances is a highly important research area. In particular, tractability results have led to new methods for constructing domain-independent heuristics. Important early examples of such results were presented by, for instance, Brafman & Domshlak and Katz & Keyder. More general results based on polytrees and bounding certain parameters were subsequently derived by Aghighi et al. and Ståhlberg. We continue this line of research by analyzing cost-optimal planning for instances with a polytree causal graph, bounded domain size and bounded depth. We show that no further restrictions are necessary for tractability, thus generalizing the previous results. Our approach is based on a novel method of closely analysing optimal plans: we recursively decompose the causal graph in a way that allows for bounding the number of variable changes as a function of the depth, using a reording argument and a comparison with prefix trees of known size. We then transform the planning instances into tree-structured constraint satisfaction instances.

We introduce two novel structural parameters for acyclic planning (planning restricted to instances with acyclic causal graphs): up-depth and down-depth. We show that cost-optimal acyclic planning restricted to instances with bounded domain size and bounded up- or down-depth can be solved in polynomial time. For example, many of the tractable subclasses based on polytrees are covered by our result. We analyze the parameterized complexity of planning with bounded up- and down-depth: in a certain sense, down-depth has better computational properties than up-depth. Finally, we show that computing up- and down-depth are fixed-parameter tractable problems, just as many other structural parameters that are used in computer science. We view our results as a natural step towards understanding the complexity of acyclic planning with bounded treewidth and other parameters.

Complexity analysis based on the causal graphs of planning instances has emerged as a highly important area of research. In particular, tractability results have led to new methods for the identification of domain-independent heuristics. Important early examples of such tractability results have been presented by, for instance, Brafman & Domshlak and Katz & Keyder. More general results based on polytrees and bounding certain parameters were subsequently derived by Aghighi et al. and Ståhlberg. We continue this line of research by analyzing cost-optimal planning restricted to instances with a polytree causal graph, bounded domain size and bounded depth (i.e. the length of the longest directed path in the causal graph). We show that no further restrictions are necessary for tractability, thus generalizing the previous results. Our approach is based on a novel method of closely analysing optimal plans: we recursively decompose the causal graph in a way that allows for bounding the number of variable changes as a function of the depth, using a reording argument and a comparison with prefix trees of known size. We can then transform the planning instances into constraint satisfaction instances; an idea that has previously been exploited by, for example, Brafman & Domshlak and Bäckström. This allows us to utilise efficient algorithms for constraint optimisation over tree-structured instances.

Bäckström has previously studied a number of optimization problems for partial-order plans, like finding a minimum deordering (MCD) or reordering (MCR), and finding the minimum parallel execution length (PPL), which are all NP-complete. We revisit these problems, but applying parameterized complexity analysis rather than standard complexity analysis. We consider various parameters, including both the original and desired size of the plan order, as well as its width and height. Our findings include that MCD and MCR are W[2]-hard and in W[P] when parameterized with the desired order size, and MCD is fixed-parameter tractable (fpt) when parameterized with the original order size. Problem PPL is fpt if parameterized with the size of the non-concurrency relation, but para-NP-hard in most other cases. We also consider this problem when the number (k) of agents, or processors, is restricted, finding that this number is a crucial parameter; this problem is fixed-parameter tractable with the order size, the parallel execution length and k as parameter, but para-NP-hard without k as parameter.

There is an extensive literature on the complexity of planning, but explicit bounds on time and space complexity are very rare. On the other hand, problems like the constraint satisfaction problem (CSP) have been thoroughly analysed in this respect. We provide a number of upper- and lower-bound results (the latter based on various complexity-theoretic assumptions such as the Exponential Time Hypothesis) for both satisficing and optimal planning. We show that many classes of planning instances exhibit a dichotomy: either they can be solved in polynomial time or they cannot be solved in subexponential time. In many cases, we can even prove closely matching upper and lower bounds. Our results also indicate, analogously to CSPs, the existence of sharp phase transitions. We finally study and discuss the trade-off between time and space. In particular, we show that depth-first search may sometimes be a viable option for planning under severe space constraints.

Cost-optimal planning has become a very well-studied topic within planning. Needless to say, cost-optimal planning has proven to be computationally hard both theoretically and in practice. Since cost-optimal planning is an optimisation problem, it is natural to analyse it from an approximation point of view. Even though such studies may be valuable in themselves, additional motivation is provided by the fact that there is a very close link between approximability and the performance of heuristics used in heuristic search. The aim of this paper is to analyse approximability (and indirectly the performance of heuristics) with respect to lower time bounds. That is, we are not content by merely classifying problems into complexity classes — we also study their time complexity. This is achieved by replacing standard complexity-theoretic assumptions (such as P ≠ NP) with the exponential time hypothesis (ETH). This enables us to analyse, for instance, the performance of the h+heuristic and obtain general trade-off results that correlate approximability bounds with bounds on time complexity.

There is an extensive literature on the complexity of planning, but explicit bounds on time and space complexity are very rare. On the other hand, problems like the constraint satisfaction problem have been thoroughly analysed in this respect. We provide a number of upper and lower bound results for both plan satisfiability (PSAT) and length-optimal planning (LOP), with an emphasis on monotone planning (where actions have only positive effects) which is used in, for instance, h+and similar heuristics. Let v and a be the number of variables and actions, respectively. We consider both restrictions on the number and polarity of preconditions and effects of actions and the PUBS restrictions in SAS+. For all such classes, we show that PSAT and LOP is either tractable or cannot be solved in subexponential time 2o(v)or time 2o(a), unless the so-called Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) is false. There is also a sharp transition: monotone LOP can be solved in time 2o(v)ifbut not if a∈Ω(v). We also study upper bounds and discuss the trade-off between time and space, providing a polynomial-space algorithm for monotone LOP that beats depth-first search in most cases. This raises the important question how lower bounds are affected by polynomial space restrictions.

We apply the theory of parameterised complexity to planning, using the concept of fixed-parameter tractability (fpt) which is more relaxed than the usual tractability concept. The parameter we focus on is the maximal number of paths in the domain-transition graphs, and we show that for this parameter, optimal planning is fpt for planning instances with polytree causal graphs and acyclic domain-transition graphs. If this parameter is combined with the additional parameters of domain size for the variables and the treewidth of the causal graph, then planning is fpt also for instances with arbitrary causal graphs. Furthermore, all these parameters are fpt to test in advance. These results also imply that delete-relaxed planning is fpt, even in its recent generalisation to non-binary variables.

Macros have long been used in planning to represent subsequences of operators. Macros can be used in place of individual operators during search, sometimes reducing the effort required to find a plan to the goal. Another use of macros is to compactly represent long plans. In this paper we introduce a novel solution concept called automaton plans in which plans are represented using hierarchies of automata. Automaton plans can be viewed as an extension of macros that enables parameterization and branching. We provide several examples that illustrate how automaton plans can be useful, both as a compact representation of exponentially long plans and as an alternative to sequential solutions in benchmark domains such as Logistics and Grid. We also compare automaton plans to other compact plan representations from the literature, and find that automaton plans are strictly more expressive than macros, but strictly less expressive than HTNs and certain representations allowing efficient sequential access to the operators of the plan.

There has been a tremendous advance in domain-independent planning over the past decades, and planners have become increasingly efficient at finding plans. However, this has not been paired by any corresponding improvement in detecting unsolvable instances. Such instances are obviously important but largely neglected in planning. In other areas, such as constraint solving and model checking, much effort has been spent on devising methods for detecting unsolvability. We introduce a method for detecting unsolvable planning instances that is loosely based on consistency checking in constraint programming. Our method balances completeness against efficiency through a parameter k: the algorithm identifies more unsolvable instances but takes more time for increasing values of k. We present empirical data for our algorithm and some standard planners on a number of unsolvable instances, demonstrating that our method can be very efficient where the planners fail to detect unsolvability within reasonable resource bounds. We observe that planners based on the h^m heuristic or pattern databases are better than other planners for detecting unsolvability. This is not a coincidence since there are similarities (but also significant differences) between our algorithm and these two heuristic methods.

The causal graph of a planning instance is an important tool for planning both in practice and in theory. The theoretical studies of causal graphs have largely analysed the computational complexity of planning for instances where the causal graph has a certain structure, often in combination with other parameters like the domain size of the variables. Chen and Giménez ignored even the structure and considered only the size of the weakly connected components. They proved that planning is tractable if the components are bounded by a constant and otherwise intractable. Their intractability result was, however, conditioned by an assumption from parameterised complexity theory that has no known useful relationship with the standard complexity classes. We approach the same problem from the perspective of standard complexity classes, and prove that planning is NP-hard for classes with unbounded components under an additional restriction we refer to as SP-closed. We then argue that most NP-hardness theorems for causal graphs are difficult to apply and, thus, prove a more general result; even if the component sizes grow slowly and the class is not densely populated with graphs, planning still cannot be tractable unless the polynomial hierachy collapses. Both these results still hold when restricted to the class of acyclic causal graphs. We finally give a partial characterization of the borderline between NP-hard and NP-intermediate classes, giving further insight into the problem.

The early classifications of the computational complexity of planning under various restrictions in STRIPS (Bylander) and SAS+ (Bäckström and Nebel) have influenced following research in planning in many ways. We go back and reanalyse their subclasses, but this time using the more modern tool of parameterized complexity analysis. This provides new results that together with the old results give a more detailed picture of the complexity landscape. We demonstrate separation results not possible with standard complexity theory, which contributes to explaining why certain cases of planning have seemed simpler in practice than theory has predicted. In particular, we show that certain restrictions of practical interest are tractable in the parameterized sense of the term, and that a simple heuristic is sufficient to make a well-known partial-order planner exploit this fact.

Modelling abstraction as a function from the original state space to an abstract state space is a common approach in combinatorial search. Sometimes this is too restricted, though, and we have previously proposed a framework using a more flexible concept of transformations between labelled graphs. We also proposed a number of properties to describe and classify such transformations. This framework enabled the modelling of a number of different abstraction methods in a way that facilitated comparative analyses. It is of particular interest that these properties can be used to capture the concept of refinement without backtracking between levels; how to do this has been an open question for at least twenty years. In this paper, we continue our previous research by analysing the complexity of testing the various transformation properties for both explicit and implicit graph~representations.

Compact representations of objects is a common concept in computer science. Automated planning can be viewed as a case of this concept: a planning instance is a compact implicit representation of a graph and the problem is to find a path (a plan) in this graph. While the graphs themselves are represented compactly as planning instances, the paths are usually represented explicitly as sequences of actions. Some cases are known where the plans always have compact representations, for example, using macros. We show that these results do not extend to the general case, by proving a number of bounds for compact representations of plans under various criteria, like efficient sequential or random access of actions. In addition to this, we show that our results have consequences for what can be gained from reformulating planning into some other problem. As a contrast to this we also prove a number of positive results, demonstrating restricted cases where plans do have useful compact representations, as well as proving that macro plans have favourable access properties. Our results are finally discussed in relation to other relevant contexts.

Complexity analysis of planning is problematic. Even very simple planning languages are PSPACE-complete, yet cannot model many simple problems naturally. Many languages with much more powerful features are also PSPACE-complete. It is thus difficult to separate planning languages in a useful way and to get complexity figures that better reflect reality. This paper introduces new methods for complexity analysis of planning and similar combinatorial search problems, in order to achieve more precision and complexity separations than standard methods allow. Padding instances with the solution size yields a complexity measure that is immune to this factor and reveals other causes of hardness, that are otherwise hidden. Further combining this method with limited non-determinism improves the precision, making even finer separations possible. We demonstrate with examples how these methods can narrow the gap between theory and practice.

This article studies the problem of modifying the action ordering of a plan in order to optimise the plan according to various criteria. One of these criteria is to make a plan less constrained and the other is to minimize its parallel execution time. Three candidate definitions are proposed for the first of these criteria, constituting a sequence of increasing optimality guarantees. Two of these are based on deordering plans, which means that ordering relations may only be removed, not added, while the third one uses reordering, where arbitrary modifications to the ordering are allowed. It is shown that only the weakest one of the three criteria is tractable to achieve, the other two being NP-hard and even difficult to approximate. Similarly, optimising the parallel execution time of a plan is studied both for deordering and reordering of plans. In the general case, both of these computations are NP-hard. However, it is shown that optimal deorderings can be computed in polynomial time for a class of planning languages based on the notions of producers, consumers and threats, which includes most of the commonly used planning languages. Computing optimal reorderings can potentially lead to even faster parallel executions, but this problem remains NP-hard and difficult to approximate even under quite severe restrictions.

We have previously reported a number of tractable planning problems defined in the SAS+ formalism. This article complements these results by providing a complete map over the complexity of SAS+ planning under all combinations of the previously considered restrictions. We analyze the complexity of both finding a minimal plan and finding any plan. In contrast to other complexity surveys of planning, we study not only the complexity of the decision problems but also the complexity of the generation problems. We prove that the SAS+‐PUS problem is the maximal tractable problem under the restrictions we have considered if we want to generate minimal plans. If we are satisfied with any plan, then we can generalize further to the SAS+‐US problem, which we prove to be the maximal tractable problem in this case.

This article describes a polynomial‐time, O(n3), planning algorithm for a limited class of planning problems. Compared to previous work on complexity of algorithms for knowledge‐based or logic‐based planning, our algorithm achieves computational tractability, but at the expense of only applying to a significantly more limited class of problems. Our algorithm is proven correct, and it always returns a parallel minimal plan if there is a plan at all. Cet article décrit un algorithme de planification de temps polynomial O(n3) pour une classe restreinte de problemes de planification. Contrairement aux travaux précédents sur la complexité des algorithmes pour la planification basée sur la logique ou les connaissances, l' algorithme dont il est question dans cet article permet d' obtenir la tractabilityé computationnelle; cependant, il ne peut ětre appliqué qu'à une catégorie beaucoup plus restreinte de problèmes. Cet algorithme s'est done révélé correct et il génère toujours un plan minimal en parallèle lorsqu'il y en a un.