Deposits of clastic carbonate-dominated (calciclastic) sedimentary slope systems in the rock record have been identified mostly as linearly-consistent carbonate apron deposits, even though most ancient clastic carbonate slope deposits fit the submarine fan systems better. Calciclastic submarine fans are consequently rarely described and are poorly understood. Subsequently, very little is known especially in mud-dominated calciclastic submarine fan systems. Presented in this study are a sedimentological core and petrographic characterisation of samples from eleven boreholes from the Lower Carboniferous of Bowland Basin (Northwest England) that reveals a >250 m thick calciturbidite complex deposited in a calciclastic submarine fan setting. Seven facies are recognised from core and thin section characterisation and are grouped into three carbonate turbidite sequences. They include: 1) Calciturbidites, comprising mostly of highto low-density, wavy-laminated bioclast-rich facies; 2) low-density densite mudstones which are characterised by planar laminated and unlaminated muddominated facies; and 3) Calcidebrites which are muddy or hyper-concentrated debrisflow deposits occurring as poorly-sorted, chaotic, mud-supported floatstones. These

Phd by thesis

http://user.it.uu.se/~jarst116/slides/week4.pdf

Graph-Based Algorithms for Boolean Function Manipulation

When I started out as a newly hatched PhD student, back in the day, one of the first articles I read and understood (or at least thought that I understood) was Ray Reiter’s classic article on default logic (Reiter, 1980).This was some years after the famous ‘non-monotonic logic’ issue of Artificial Intelligence in which that article appeared, but default logic was still one of the leading approaches, a tribute to the simplicity and power of the theory. As a result of reading the article, I became fascinated by both default logic and, more generally, non-monotonic logics. However, despite my fascination, these approaches never seemed terribly useful for the kinds of problem that I was supposed to be studying—problems like those in medical decision making—and so I eventually lost interest. In fact non-monotonic logics seemed to me, and to many people at the time I think, not to be terribly useful for anything. They were interesting, and clearly relevant to the long-term goals of Artificial Intelligence as a discipline, but not of any immediate practical importance. This verdict, delivered at the end of the 1980s, continued, I think, to be true for the next few years while researchers working in non-monotonic logics studied problems that to outsiders seemed to be ever more obscure. However, by the end of the 1990s, it was becoming clear, even to folk as short-sighted as I, that non-monotonic logics were getting to the point at which they could be used to solve practical problems. Knowledge in action shows quite how far these techniques have come. The reason that non-monotonic logics were invented was, of course, in order to use logic to reason about the world. Our knowledge of the world is typically incomplete, and so, in order to reason about it, one has to make assumptions about things one does not know. This, in turn, requires mechanisms for both making assumptions and then retracting them if and when they turn out not to be true. Non-monotonic logics are intended to handle this kind of assumption making and retracting, providing a mechanism that has the clean semantics of logic, but which has a non-monotonic set of conclusions. Much of the early work on non-monotonic logics was concerned with theoretical reasoning, that is reasoning about the beliefs of an agent—what the agent believes to be true. Theoretical reasoning is the domain of all those famous examples like ‘Typically birds fly. Tweety is a bird, so does Tweety fly?’, and the fact that so much of non-monotonic reasoning seemed to focus on theoretical reasoning was why I lost interest in it. I became much more concerned with practical reasoning—that is reasoning about what an agent should do—and non-monotonic reasoning seemed to me to have nothing interesting to say about practical reasoning. Of course I was wrong. When one tries to formulate any kind of description of the world as the basis for planning, one immediately runs into applications of non-monotonic logics, for example in keeping track of the state of a changing world. It is this use of non-monotonic logic that is at the heart of Knowledge in action. Building on the McCarthy’s situation calculus, Knowledge in action constructs a theory of action that encompasses a very large part of what an agent requires to reason about the world. As Reiter says in the final chapter,

Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems

LAMA is a classical planning system based on heuristic forward search. Its core feature is the use of a pseudo-heuristic derived from landmarks, propositional formulas that must be true in every solution of a planning task. LAMA builds on the Fast Downward planning system, using finite-domain rather than binary state variables and multi-heuristic search. The latter is employed to combine the landmark heuristic with a variant of the well-known FF heuristic. Both heuristics are cost-sensitive, focusing on high-quality solutions in the case where actions have non-uniform cost. A weighted A* search is used with iteratively decreasing weights, so that the planner continues to search for plans of better quality until the search is terminated.

LAMA showed best performance among all planners in the sequential satisficing track of the International Planning Competition 2008. In this paper we present the system in detail and investigate which features of LAMA are crucial for its performance. We present individual results for some of the domains used at the competition, demonstrating good and bad cases for the techniques implemented in LAMA. Overall, we find that using landmarks improves performance, whereas the incorporation of action costs into the heuristic estimators proves not to be beneficial. We show that in some domains a search that ignores cost solves far more problems, raising the question of how to deal with action costs more effectively in the future. The iterated weighted A* search greatly improves results, and shows synergy effects with the use of landmarks.

/pdf/the-lama-planner-guiding-cost-based-anytime-planning-with-m7fkfi9ylh.pdf

The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks

In the multi agent path finding problem (MAPF) paths should be found for several agents, each with a different start and goal position such that agents do not collide. Previous optimal solvers applied global A*-based searches. We present a new search algorithm called Conflict Based Search (CBS). CBS is a two-level algorithm. At the high level, a search is performed on a tree based on conflicts between agents. At the low level, a search is performed only for a single agent at a time. In many cases this reformulation enables CBS to examine fewer states than A* while still maintaining optimality. We analyze CBS and show its benefits and drawbacks. Experimental results on various problems shows a speedup of up to a full order of magnitude over previous approaches.

Conflict-based search for optimal multi-agent path finding

Planning systems for real-world applications need the ability to handle concurrency and numeric fluents Nevertheless, the predominant approach to cope with concurrency followed by the most successful participants in the latest International Planning Competitions (IPC) is still to find a sequential plan that is rescheduled in a post-processing step We present Temporal Fast Downward (TFD), a planning system for temporal problems that is capable of finding low-makespan plans by performing a heuristic search in a temporal search space We show how the context-enhanced additive heuristic can be successfully used for temporal planning and how it can be extended to numeric fluents TFD often produces plans of high quality and, evaluated according to the rating scheme of the last IPC, outperforms all state-of-the-art temporal planning systems

/pdf/using-the-context-enhanced-additive-heuristic-for-temporal-4ohmeljkzw.pdf

Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning

Heuristic search using algorithms such as A* and IDA* is the prevalent method for obtaining optimal sequential solutions for classical planning tasks. Theoretical analyses of these classical search algorithms, such as the well-known results of Pohl, Gaschnig and Pearl, suggest that such heuristic search algorithms can obtain better than exponential scaling behaviour, provided that the heuristics are accurate enough.

Here, we show that for a number of common planning benchmark domains, including ones that admit optimal solution in polynomial time, general search algorithms such as A* must necessarily explore an exponential number of search nodes even under the optimistic assumption of almost perfect heuristic estimators, whose heuristic error is bounded by a small additive constant.

Our results shed some light on the comparatively bad performance of optimal heuristic search approaches in "simple" planning domains such as GRIPPER. They suggest that in many applications, further improvements in run-time require changes to other parts of the search algorithm than the heuristic estimator.

/pdf/how-good-is-almost-perfect-nhk3g80ntw.pdf

How good is almost perfect

We empirically examine several ways of exploiting the information of multiple heuristics in a satisficing best-first search algorithm, comparing their performance in terms of coverage, plan quality, speed, and search guidance. Our results indicate that using multiple heuristics for satisficing search is indeed useful. Among the combination methods we consider, the best results are obtained by the alternation method of the "Fast Diagonally Downward" planner.

/pdf/the-more-the-merrier-combining-heuristic-estimators-for-3ibca9jacm.pdf

The more, the merrier: combining heuristic estimators for satisficing planning

Many heuristics for cost-optimal planning are based on linear programming. We cover several interesting heuristics of this type by a common framework that fixes the objective function of the linear program. Within the framework, constraints from different heuristics can be combined in one heuristic estimate which dominates the maximum of the component heuristics. Different heuristics of the framework can be compared on the basis of their constraints. With this new method of analysis, we show dominance of the recent LP-based state-equation heuristic over optimal cost partitioning on single-variable abstractions. We also show that the previously suggested extension of the state-equation heuristic to exploit safe variables cannot lead to an improved heuristic estimate. We experimentally evaluate the potential of the proposed framework on an extensive suite of benchmark tasks.

LP-based heuristics for cost-optimal planning

Operator cost partitioning is a well-known technique to make admissible heuristics additive by distributing the operator costs among individual heuristics. Planning tasks are usually defined with non-negative operator costs and therefore it appears natural to demand the same for the distributed costs. We argue that this requirement is not necessary and demonstrate the benefit of using general cost partitioning. We show that LP heuristics for operator-counting constraints are cost-partitioned heuristics and that the state equation heuristic computes a cost partitioning over atomic projections. We also introduce a new family of potential heuristics and show their relationship to general cost partitioning.

https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI15/paper/download/9983/9762

Gabriele Röger

Papers

Using the context-enhanced additive heuristic for temporal and numeric planning

How good is almost perfect

The more, the merrier: combining heuristic estimators for satisficing planning

LP-based heuristics for cost-optimal planning

From non-negative to general operator cost partitioning