\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Proceedings of 10th International Planning Competition: Planner and Domain Abstracts – Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020).\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gregor Behnke; Daniel Höller; and Pascal Bercher.,\n editors.\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\n 2021.\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n ipc-booklet\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@proceedings{IPC2020Booklet,\n title = {Proceedings of 10th {I}nternational {P}lanning {C}ompetition: Planner and Domain Abstracts -- Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020)},\n year = {2021},\n editor = {Gregor Behnke and Daniel H{\\"o}ller and Pascal Bercher},\n url_IPC-Booklet = {https://bercher.net/publications/2021/Behnke2021IPC-Booklet.pdf},\n abstract = {<p>Since its first edition in 1998, the International Planning Competition (IPC) has been an integral event of the planning community. For more than 20 years, it established unified input languages for planners, enabled an objective comparison between them based on an accessible benchmark set. The IPC drove the development of planners and fostered research. Thus, the IPC enabled planning researchers to compare their own work against the work of others -- not only within the competition, but also outside of it. Due to the IPC almost all contemporary planners understand (some form of) PDDL, which allows for using IPC benchmarks across a multitude of planners.</p>\n\n<p>The first two IPCs had -- in addition to the regular track -- a track on hand-tailored planners in which the planners could be provided with additional information or select their algorithms based on the input domain. Among these planners, some used Hierarchical Planning -- most notably SHOP. Following the second IPC in 2000 the hand-tailored track was discontinued. Hierarchical planning was thereafter not part of the IPC any more. Research in the field however continued.</p>\n\n<p>The International Planning Competition 2020 features for the first time a track dedicated to hierarchical planning. In contrast to the previous track on hand-tailored planners we don't want to evaluate how good planners can become given any possible additional knowledge, but ask how well planners can exploit a given hierarchical refinement structure. We therefore faced several unique challenges. We had to establish a common input language for all planners such that all of them operate on the very same model. We also had to specify a plan-output format and provide a verifier, since we had to ensure that the found plans satisfy the decompositional structure of the given task hierarchy. Further, we had to gather a comprehensive set of benchmark domains, since no such set existed before. We hope that this first competition for Hierarchical Task Network planners will foster future research into hierarchical planning and provide a common basis for many researchers -- by establishing a unified input language, a common benchmark set, and an evaluation of the state of the art in HTN planning. We hope that many future editions of this competition will follow.</p>\n\nGregor, Daniel, and Pascal<br/>\nOrganizers of the IPC 2020,<br/>\nMay 2021}\n}\n\n%% WIPC WORKSHOP\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n
Since its first edition in 1998, the International Planning Competition (IPC) has been an integral event of the planning community. For more than 20 years, it established unified input languages for planners, enabled an objective comparison between them based on an accessible benchmark set. The IPC drove the development of planners and fostered research. Thus, the IPC enabled planning researchers to compare their own work against the work of others – not only within the competition, but also outside of it. Due to the IPC almost all contemporary planners understand (some form of) PDDL, which allows for using IPC benchmarks across a multitude of planners.
The first two IPCs had – in addition to the regular track – a track on hand-tailored planners in which the planners could be provided with additional information or select their algorithms based on the input domain. Among these planners, some used Hierarchical Planning – most notably SHOP. Following the second IPC in 2000 the hand-tailored track was discontinued. Hierarchical planning was thereafter not part of the IPC any more. Research in the field however continued.
The International Planning Competition 2020 features for the first time a track dedicated to hierarchical planning. In contrast to the previous track on hand-tailored planners we don't want to evaluate how good planners can become given any possible additional knowledge, but ask how well planners can exploit a given hierarchical refinement structure. We therefore faced several unique challenges. We had to establish a common input language for all planners such that all of them operate on the very same model. We also had to specify a plan-output format and provide a verifier, since we had to ensure that the found plans satisfy the decompositional structure of the given task hierarchy. Further, we had to gather a comprehensive set of benchmark domains, since no such set existed before. We hope that this first competition for Hierarchical Task Network planners will foster future research into hierarchical planning and provide a common basis for many researchers – by establishing a unified input language, a common benchmark set, and an evaluation of the state of the art in HTN planning. We hope that many future editions of this competition will follow.
Gregor, Daniel, and Pascal
Organizers of the IPC 2020,
May 2021\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Hierarchical Woodworking Domain.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Bernd Schattenberg; and Pascal Bercher.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
Proceedings of 10th International Planning Competition: Planner and Domain Abstracts – Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020), pages 43–44, 2021. \n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 6 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{Schattenberg2021Woodworking,\n title = {The Hierarchical Woodworking Domain},\n author = {Bernd Schattenberg and Pascal Bercher},\n booktitle = {Proceedings of 10th {I}nternational {P}lanning {C}ompetition: Planner and Domain Abstracts -- Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020)},\n year = {2021},\n pages = {43--44},\n abstract = {The Woodworking domain is one of the classical benchmark domains in the canon of the International Planning Competition. This paper describes our hierarchical take on it.},\n url_Paper = {https://bercher.net/publications/2021/Schattenberg2021Woodworking.pdf}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The Woodworking domain is one of the classical benchmark domains in the canon of the International Planning Competition. This paper describes our hierarchical take on it.\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Smartphone Domain.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Pascal Bercher; Susanne Biundo; and Bernd Schattenberg.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
Proceedings of 10th International Planning Competition: Planner and Domain Abstracts – Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020), pages 47–47, 2021. \n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 4 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{Bercher2021Smartphone,\n title = {The Smartphone Domain},\n author = {Pascal Bercher and Susanne Biundo and Bernd Schattenberg},\n booktitle = {Proceedings of 10th {I}nternational {P}lanning {C}ompetition: Planner and Domain Abstracts -- Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020)},\n year = {2021},\n pages = {47--47},\n abstract = {This extended abstract is about the Smartphone domain, submitted as a benchmark domain to the IPC 2020.},\n url_Paper = {https://bercher.net/publications/2021/Bercher2021Smartphone.pdf}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n This extended abstract is about the Smartphone domain, submitted as a benchmark domain to the IPC 2020.\n
\n\n\n
\n
\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n From PCP to HTN Planning Through CFGs.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Daniel Höller; Songtuan Lin; Kutluhan Erol; and Pascal Bercher.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n In
Proceedings of 10th International Planning Competition: Planner and Domain Abstracts – Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020), pages 24–25, 2021. \n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n
\n\n \n \n paper\n \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n \n \n 8 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@inproceedings{Hoeller2021PCP,\n title = {From PCP to HTN Planning Through CFGs},\n author = {Daniel H\\"oller and Songtuan Lin and Kutluhan Erol and Pascal Bercher},\n booktitle = {Proceedings of 10th {I}nternational {P}lanning {C}ompetition: Planner and Domain Abstracts -- Hierarchical Task Network (HTN) Planning Track (IPC 2020)},\n year = {2021},\n pages = {24--25},\n abstract = {The International Planning Competition in 2020 was the first one for a long time to host tracks on HTN planning. The used benchmark set included a domain describing the undecidable Post Correspondence Problem (PCP). In this paper we describe the two-step process applied to generate HTN problems based on PCP instances. It translates the PCP into a grammar intersection problem of two context-free languages, which is then encoded into an HTN problem.},\n url_Paper = {https://bercher.net/publications/2021/Hoeller2021PCP.pdf}\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The International Planning Competition in 2020 was the first one for a long time to host tracks on HTN planning. The used benchmark set included a domain describing the undecidable Post Correspondence Problem (PCP). In this paper we describe the two-step process applied to generate HTN problems based on PCP instances. It translates the PCP into a grammar intersection problem of two context-free languages, which is then encoded into an HTN problem.\n
\n\n\n