arXiv subjects

Gregor Behnke

Publications and source records attributed to Gregor Behnke.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Transforming and Encoding FTS for SAT Solving: What Helps, What Hurts (Extended Version)

Factored tasks are a classical planning representation that extends SAS+ with limited forms of disjunctive preconditions, conditional effects, and angelic nondeterminism. This allows for a more compact representation of tasks than traditional formalisms such as STRIPS or SAS+, and supports a wide range of task transformations. However, existing planning approaches for factored tasks have been limited to heuristic search methods. In this work, we investigate how to encode factored tasks in SAT. We propose several ways to encode the tasks, focusing on different strategies for translating the factored transition relation into propositional logic. We also analyze how to exploit parallelism at various levels in this setting and study the impact of common task transformations on the performance of SAT-based planners.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

When both Grounding and not Grounding are Bad -- A Partially Grounded Encoding of Planning into SAT (Extended Version)

Classical planning problems are typically defined using lifted first-order representations, which offer compactness and generality. While most planners ground these representations to simplify reasoning, this can cause an exponential blowup in size. Recent approaches instead operate directly on the lifted level to avoid full grounding. We explore a middle ground between fully lifted and fully grounded planning by introducing three SAT encodings that keep actions lifted while partially grounding predicates. Unlike previous SAT encodings, which scale quadratically with plan length, our approach scales linearly, enabling better performance on longer plans. Empirically, our best encoding outperforms the state of the art in length-optimal planning on hard-to-ground domains.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Comparing State-Representations for DEL Model Checking

Model checking with the standard Kripke models used in (Dynamic) Epistemic Logic leads to scalability issues. Hence alternative representations have been developed, in particular symbolic structures based on Binary Decision Diagrams (BDDs) and succinct models based on mental programs. While symbolic structures have been shown to perform well in practice, their theoretical complexity was not known so far. On the other hand, for succinct models model checking is known to be PSPACE-complete, but no implementations are available. We close this gap and directly relate the two representations. We show that model checking DEL on symbolic structures encoded with BDDs is also PSPACE-complete. In fact, already model checking Epistemic Logic without dynamics is PSPACE-complete on symbolic structures. We also provide direct translations between BDDs and mental programs. Both translations yield exponential outputs. For the translation from mental programs to BDDs we show that no small translation exists. For the other direction we conjecture the same.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2024

On the Computational Complexity of Stackelberg Planning and Meta-Operator Verification: Technical Report

Stackelberg planning is a recently introduced single-turn two-player adversarial planning model, where two players are acting in a joint classical planning task, the objective of the first player being hampering the second player from achieving its goal. This places the Stackelberg planning problem somewhere between classical planning and general combinatorial two-player games. But, where exactly? All investigations of Stackelberg planning so far focused on practical aspects. We close this gap by conducting the first theoretical complexity analysis of Stackelberg planning. We show that in general Stackelberg planning is actually no harder than classical planning. Under a polynomial plan-length restriction, however, Stackelberg planning is a level higher up in the polynomial complexity hierarchy, suggesting that compilations into classical planning come with a worst-case exponential plan-length increase. In attempts to identify tractable fragments, we further study its complexity under various planning task restrictions, showing that Stackelberg planning remains intractable where classical planning is not. We finally inspect the complexity of meta-operator verification, a problem that has been recently connected to Stackelberg planning.

cs.AI↗