Preferred operators and deferred evaluation in satisficing planning

71Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Heuristic forward search is the dominant approach to satisficing planning to date. Most successful planning systems, however, go beyond plain heuristic search by employing various search-enhancement techniques. One example is the use of helpful actions or preferred operators, providing information which may complement heuristic values. A second example is deferred heuristic evaluation, a search variant which can reduce the number of costly node evaluations. Despite the wide-spread use of these search-enhancement techniques however, we note that few results have been published examining their usefulness. In particular, while various ways of using, and possibly combining, these techniques are conceivable, no work to date has studied the performance of such variations. In this paper, we address this gap by examining the use of preferred operators and deferred evaluation in a variety of settings within best-first search. In particular, our findings are consistent with and help explain the good performance of the winners of the satisficing tracks at IPC 2004 and 2008. Copyright © 2009, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. All rights reserved.

References Powered by Scopus

1440Citations
317Readers

The fast downward planning system

1229Citations
322Readers
782Citations
316Readers

This article is free to access.

Cited by Powered by Scopus

495Citations
159Readers
Get full text

Enhanced partial expansion A*

131Citations
78Readers

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Richter, S., & Helmert, M. (2009). Preferred operators and deferred evaluation in satisficing planning. In ICAPS 2009 - Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (pp. 273–280). https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v19i1.13345

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘22‘2301234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 13

72%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

17%

Researcher 2

11%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Computer Science 19

95%

Engineering 1

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0