Next: Benchmark Problems
Up: Our Experimental Setup
Previous: UCPOP
Following standard practice, our experiments require planners to solve
commonly available benchmark problems and the AIPS competition
problems. In addition, to test our assumptions about the influence of
domains (assumption PR1) and representations of problems (assumption
PR2), we will also include permuted benchmark problems and some other
application problems. This section describes the set of problems and
domains in our study, focusing on their source and composition.
The problems require only STRIPS capabilities (i.e., add and delete
lists). We chose this least common denominator for several
reasons. First, more capable planners can still handle STRIPS
requirements; thus, this maximized the number of planners that could
be included in our experiment. Also, not surprisingly, more problems
of this type are available. Second, we are examining assumptions of
evaluation, including the effect of required capabilities on
performance. We do not propose to duplicate the effort of the
competitions in singling out planners for distinction, but rather, our
purpose is to determine what factors differentially affect planners.
The bulk of the problems came from the AIPS98 and AIPS 2000 problem
sets and the set of problems distributed with the PDDL specification.
The remaining problems were solicited from several sources. The
source and counts of problems and domains are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2:
Summary of problems in our testing set: source of the problems, the
number of domains and problems within those domains.
Source |
# of Domains |
# of Problems |
Benchmarks |
50 |
293 |
AIPS 1998 |
6 |
202 |
AIPS 2000 |
5 |
892 |
Developers |
1 |
13 |
Application |
3 |
72 |
|
Subsections
Next: Benchmark Problems
Up: Our Experimental Setup
Previous: UCPOP
©2002 AI Access Foundation and Morgan Kaufmann
Publishers. All rights reserved.