On the Role of Ground Actions in Refinement Planning

Håkan L. S. Younes Reid G. Simmons

Less than a decade ago, the focus in refinement planning was on partial order planners using lifted actions. Today, the currently most successful refinement planners are all state space planners using ground actions—i.e. actions where all parameters have been substituted by objects. In this paper, we address the role of ground actions in refinement planning, and present empirical results indicating that their role is twofold. First, planning with ground actions represents a bias towards early commitment of parameter bindings. Second, ground actions help enforce joint parameter domain constraints. By implementing these two techniques in a least commitment planner such as UCPOP, together with using an informed heuristic function to guide the search for solutions, we show that we often need to generate far fewer plans than when planning with ground action, while the number of explored plans remains about the same. In some cases a vast reduction can also be achieved in the number of explored plans.

Full paper: PDF, PS (8 pages, 18 references)
Copyright © 2002, American Association for Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved.

Presentation: PDF (26 slides)


  1. Laura Sebastia, Eva Onaindía, and Eliseo Marzal. 2006. Decomposition of planning problems. AI Communications 19(1):49–81.

  2. Jörg Hoffmann. 2005. Where “ignoring delete lists” works: Local search topology in planning benchmarks. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 24:685–758.

  3. Alexandra M. Coddington and Michael Luck. 2004. A motivation-based planning and execution framework. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(1):5–25.

  4. Ulrich Scholz. 2004. Reducing Planning Problems by Path Reduction. IOS Press.

  5. Romain Trinquart. 2004. Analyse d'accessibilité dans l'espace des plans partiels. Journal Électronique d'Intelligence Artificielle 5.

  6. Derek Long and Maria Fox. 2003. Exploiting a graphplan framework in temporal planning. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, 52–61. AAAI Press.

  7. Laura Sebastia, Eva Onaindía, and Eliseo Marzal. 2002. STeLLa v2.0: Planning with intermediate goals. In Proceedings of the 8th Ibero-American Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 805–814. Springer.

Valid XHTML 1.0! Håkan L. S. Younes Home > Publications ]
Last modified: Fri Sep 28 13:47:27 EDT 2007