经典规划的最佳性证书

Esther Mugdan, Remo Christen, Salomé Eriksson
{"title":"经典规划的最佳性证书","authors":"Esther Mugdan, Remo Christen, Salomé Eriksson","doi":"10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithms are usually shown to be correct on paper, but bugs in their implementations can still lead to incorrect results. In the case of classical planning, it is fortunately straightforward to check whether a computed plan is correct. For optimal planning however, plans are additionally required to have minimal cost, which is significantly more difficult to verify. While some domain-specific approaches exists, we lack a general tool to verify optimality for arbitrary problems. We bridge this gap and introduce two approaches based on the principle of certifying algorithms, which provide a computer-verifiable certificate of correctness alongside their answer. We show that both approaches are sound and complete, analyze whether they can be generated and verified efficiently, and show how to apply them to concrete planning algorithms. The experimental evaluation shows that verifying optimality comes with a cost but is still practically feasible. Furthermore it confirms that the tested planner configurations provide optimal plans on the given instances, as all certificates were verified successfully.","PeriodicalId":239898,"journal":{"name":"International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimality Certificates for Classical Planning\",\"authors\":\"Esther Mugdan, Remo Christen, Salomé Eriksson\",\"doi\":\"10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Algorithms are usually shown to be correct on paper, but bugs in their implementations can still lead to incorrect results. In the case of classical planning, it is fortunately straightforward to check whether a computed plan is correct. For optimal planning however, plans are additionally required to have minimal cost, which is significantly more difficult to verify. While some domain-specific approaches exists, we lack a general tool to verify optimality for arbitrary problems. We bridge this gap and introduce two approaches based on the principle of certifying algorithms, which provide a computer-verifiable certificate of correctness alongside their answer. We show that both approaches are sound and complete, analyze whether they can be generated and verified efficiently, and show how to apply them to concrete planning algorithms. The experimental evaluation shows that verifying optimality comes with a cost but is still practically feasible. Furthermore it confirms that the tested planner configurations provide optimal plans on the given instances, as all certificates were verified successfully.\",\"PeriodicalId\":239898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling\",\"volume\":\"72 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

算法通常在纸面上是正确的,但是它们实现中的错误仍然会导致不正确的结果。幸运的是,在经典规划的情况下,很容易检查计算出的规划是否正确。然而,对于最优规划,计划还需要具有最小的成本,这显然更难以验证。虽然存在一些特定于领域的方法,但我们缺乏一个通用的工具来验证任意问题的最优性。我们弥合了这一差距,并引入了两种基于认证算法原理的方法,这两种方法在答案旁边提供了计算机可验证的正确性证书。我们证明了这两种方法都是健全和完整的,分析了它们是否可以有效地生成和验证,并展示了如何将它们应用于具体的规划算法。实验评价表明,验证最优性是有代价的,但在实践中是可行的。此外,它确认测试的规划器配置在给定实例上提供了最佳计划,因为所有证书都已成功验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optimality Certificates for Classical Planning
Algorithms are usually shown to be correct on paper, but bugs in their implementations can still lead to incorrect results. In the case of classical planning, it is fortunately straightforward to check whether a computed plan is correct. For optimal planning however, plans are additionally required to have minimal cost, which is significantly more difficult to verify. While some domain-specific approaches exists, we lack a general tool to verify optimality for arbitrary problems. We bridge this gap and introduce two approaches based on the principle of certifying algorithms, which provide a computer-verifiable certificate of correctness alongside their answer. We show that both approaches are sound and complete, analyze whether they can be generated and verified efficiently, and show how to apply them to concrete planning algorithms. The experimental evaluation shows that verifying optimality comes with a cost but is still practically feasible. Furthermore it confirms that the tested planner configurations provide optimal plans on the given instances, as all certificates were verified successfully.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Fast and Robust Resource-Constrained Scheduling with Graph Neural Networks Solving the Multi-Choice Two Dimensional Shelf Strip Packing Problem with Time Windows Generalizing Action Justification and Causal Links to Policies Exact Anytime Multi-Agent Path Finding Using Branch-and-Cut-and-Price and Large Neighborhood Search A Constraint Programming Solution to the Guillotine Rectangular Cutting Problem
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1