Title Use variables instead of predicate names for disjunctive landmarks classes
Priority feature Status chatting
Superseder Disjunctive landmarks creation is buggy
View: 289
Nosy List gabi, malte, salome, silvan
Assigned To Keywords
Optional summary

Created on 2013-06-24.12:09:41 by gabi, last changed by salome.

File name Uploaded Type Edit Remove
issue384_optimal_landmarks.png salome, 2013-06-25.15:42:11 image/png
issue384_optimal_searchtime.png salome, 2013-06-25.15:42:57 image/png
msg2515 (view) Author: salome Date: 2013-06-25.15:45:12
I implemented this change and tested it on the suite optimal_with_ipc11(). I
added the scatterplots for number of landmarks and search time. Interestingly
enough there are in most cases less disjunctive landmarks over finite domain
variables found then over PDDL predicates.
The results for satsificing will follow...
msg2500 (view) Author: gabi Date: 2013-06-24.12:09:41
This is a follow up to issue289.

There Malte wrote:
"After we fix this, I suggest that we also look at different ways of restricting
which disjunctive landmarks to allow rather than looking at predicate names.
Using predicate names always looked like a bit of a hack to me, since the search
component of the planner is otherwise based on the finite-domain representation
of the planner, which has no such thing. I'd like to see what happens if we look
at other criteria instead, e.g. only allowing disjunctive landmarks where all
facts refer to the same finite-domain variable."
Date User Action Args
2013-06-25 15:45:20salomesetmessages: - msg2514
2013-06-25 15:45:12salomesetmessages: + msg2515
2013-06-25 15:42:57salomesetfiles: + issue384_optimal_searchtime.png
status: unread -> chatting
messages: + msg2514
2013-06-25 15:42:11salomesetfiles: + issue384_optimal_landmarks.png
2013-06-24 12:09:41gabicreate