Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

How to (plan to) meet a deadline between now and then

  • Madhura Nirkhe
  • , Sarit Kraus
  • , Michael Miller
  • , Donald Perlis
  • Microsoft USA
  • University of Maryland, College Park
  • Intelligent Automation Inc

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

15 Scopus citations

Abstract

In planning situations involving tight deadlines, a commonsense reasoner may spend a substantial amount of the available time in reasoning towards and about the formulation of the (partial) plan. This reasoning involves, but is not limited to, (partial) plan formulation, making decisions about available and conceivable alternatives, plan sequencing, and also plan failure and revision. However, the time taken in reasoning about a plan brings the deadline closer. The reasoner should therefore take account of the passage of time during that same reasoning, and this accounting must continuously affect every decision under time-pressure. Step-logics were introduced as a mechanism for reasoning situated in time. We employ an extension of them here, called 'active logics', to create a logic-based planner that lets a time-situated reasoner keep track of an approaching deadline as he/she makes (and enacts) his/her plan, thereby treating all facets of planning (including plan-formation and its simultaneous or subsequent execution) as deadline-coupled. While an agent under severe time-pressure may spend a substantial amount of the available time in reasoning towards and about a plan of action, in a realistic setting the same agent must also measure up to two other crucial resource limitations as well, namely space and computation bounds. We address these concerns and offer some solutions by introducing a limited short-term memory combined with a primitive relevance mechanism, and a limited-capacity inference engine. We propose heuristics to maximize an agent's chances of meeting a deadline within these additional realistic constraints. We give examples from commonsense planning, including ones we have solved and implemented in Prolog.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)109-156
Number of pages48
JournalJournal of Logic and Computation
Volume7
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1997

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and the Army Research Office.

Funding

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and the Army Research Office.

Funders
National Science Foundation
Army Research Office

    Keywords

    • Active logic
    • Automated planning
    • Deadlines
    • Resource-limitations

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'How to (plan to) meet a deadline between now and then'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this