Action Planning for Graph Transition Systems Stefan Edelkamp Shahid Jabbar Computer Science...

Action Planning for Graph Transition

SystemsStefan Edelkamp

Shahid Jabbar

Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany

Alberto Lluch-LafuenteDepartment of Informatics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

Action Planning for GTS - Edelkamp, Jabbar, Lafuente

2

Graph Transition Systems


3

Graph Transition Systems A graph transition system (GTS) is a pair <M,g>,

where M is a weighted transition system and g is a partial graph morphism.

The weights of a transition system is modeled by a generalize cost-algebra based on monoids structure. See “Edelkamp, Jabbar, and Lafuente, Cost-Algebraic Heuristic

Search, in Proc. of 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’05), July 2005, Pittsburgh, PA. (to appear).” for more details.

Applications: Biology – Changing molecular structure, Networks – Clients appearing and disappearing.


4

Objectives How to model and check GTS?

How to encode the application of partial graph morphism?

How to deal with flexible goals? How to guide the search process?

Solution: Model the problem of checking graph transition systems in PDDL and use planning heuristics to guide the search process.


5

Outline Arrow Distributed Directory Protocol – An

example of GTS. PDDL Encoding of Arrow Distributed

Directory Protocol. Experimental Results

Performance: Planner vs. Model Checker Scaling behavior of the model

Conclusions


6

Directory Service Protocol Assume a distributed environment. Clients: The nodes in the distributed network

e.g., different computers. Mobile Objects:

Could be a file, a process or any other data structure. It can be transmitted over a network from one node to

another. It “lives” only on one node at a time.

Purpose of a Directory Service: Navigation: To provide the ability to locate a mobile

object. Synchronization: To ensure mutual exclusion in the

presence of concurrent requests.


7

Usual Approach “home”-based structure. Each object has its own “home”. “home” keeps track of the object’s location. All requests are send to the “home”. “home” sends a message to the client currently

holding the object. That client forwards the object to the requesting

client. Bottleneck: Communication costs between

“home” and clients.


8

The Arrow Distributed Directory Protocol (Demmer and Herlihy) Based on the idea of a trail of pointers Distributed Network G = (V,E,w)

z

u4

u

v

w

u3 u2u1

Mobile Object

Spanning Tree – defined by the link

predicates.

link(u3 ) = u

link(u) = u Following green links will take you to the

object.o


9

Properties of the Protocol If link(v) = v (self-loop) => The object either

resides at v, or will soon reside at v. Else, the object resides some where in the

region of the directory containing link(v).

v w

link(v) = w o


10

Messages and Constructs link(u,v): Defines the spanning tree. find(v): Request for the object issued by the node

v. move(v): The object is free to be moved to v. It

travels with the object, following the links in the original graph.

pending(u,v): Every link(u,v) has a buffer that keeps the request. Not a FIFO, but reliable.

queue(u) = {v, NULL}: A predicate attached with every node. Tells that u has to transfer the object to v when it is finished with the object.


11

Working of the Protocol v issues a request find(v) for the object.

z

u4

u

v

w

u3 u2u1

find(v)

u issues move(v) when it is

finished with the object

o

find(v) inserted in the pending buffer

move(v)

A queue predicate is declared for v:

queue(u) = v

The object is moved to v following the shortest path in G (blue edges)


12

Concurrent Requests find(v) stuck in the communication channel. w also issues a request in the meanwhile.

find(v) stuck in

the com.

channel

z

u4

u

v

w

u3 u2u1

find(w)

w’s request would be

diverted to v instead

queue(v) = w

z also issues a request

find(z)

oqueue(u) = z

find(v) released

find(v)

queue(z) = v

All future requests will be

forwarded to wObject Path: u – z – v - w


13

Advantages A distributed queue structure. Object request messages travel the

shortest path in the spanning tree and not in the original graph.

The queue structure ensures locality: all requests will go directly to the object or to another terminal. Do not have to pass through a “home”.


14

Properties to Verify / Types of Goals Can a particular node u be a terminal? (Subgraph

matching)

Can a particular node u be a terminal and all arrow paths end at u? (Graph Matching)

Can an arbitrary node ui be a terminal? (Subgraph isomorphism)

Can an arbitrary node ui be a terminal and all arrow paths end at ui? (Graph isomorphism)


15

Part IIPDDL Encoding


16

PDDL Encoding: Morphism as PDDL Actions A morphism operation that inverses an

edge can easily be defined as a very simple action.

(:action morphism-inverse:parameters(?u ?v - node):precondition

(link ?u ?v):effect

(and (not (link ?u ?v)) (link ?v ?u)))


17

PDDL Encoding of Goals: Graph and Subgraph Matching. Subgraph and graph matching are easy to

encode. Encode the goal graph with (link u v) and owner with (owner w) predicates.


18

PDDL Encoding of Goals: Subgraph Isomorphism Goals are strictly more expressive. Need an existential quantification over all

the nodes to be described. ADL (Pednault 1989)

(:goal <existential-expression> <goal-condition>)

Using ADL, subgraph isomorphism can be encoded as (:goal (exists (?n - node) (owner ?n)))


19

PDDL Encoding of Goals: Graph Isomorphism Existential quantifier can again be used ..

(:goal (exists ?v0 ?v1 ?v2 ?v3 ?v4

?v5 - node)

(and (link ?v0 ?v0) (link ?v1 ?v0)

(link ?v2 ?v0) (link ?v3 ?v1)

(link ?v4 ?v0) (link ?v5 ?v4)

(owner ?v3)))


20

Performance: Model Checker(HSF-Spin) vs. Planner (FF) – Subgraph MatchingStar DFS BFS + hf EHC + RPHStored nodes 6,253 30 6

Sol. length 134 58 5

Chain DFS BFS + hf EHC + RPHStored nodes 78,112 38 6


Tree DFS BFS + hf EHC + RPHStored nodes 24,875 34 6



21

Scaling Behavior of the ModelTopology Nodes Stored Plan Length

Star

10 6 5

25 7 6

50 7 6

70 7 6

Chain

10 6 5

25 33 28

50 100 73

70 138 101

Tree

10 6 5

25 22 16

50 47 25

70 61 311.9 GB


22

Conclusions First such efforts to model GTS with PDDL. Advantages: Planning heuristics can be

employed directly. Successfully modeled Arrow Distributed

Directory Protocol. Still some limitations in modeling the full-

fledged specification of GTS. Dynamic insertions and deletions of nodes and

edges. Can be circumvented to some extent by using

a pool of available objects.

Action Planning for Graph Transition Systems Stefan Edelkamp Shahid Jabbar Computer Science...

Documents

Transcript of Action Planning for Graph Transition Systems Stefan Edelkamp Shahid Jabbar Computer Science...