VAL: automatic plan validation, continuous effects and mixed initiative planning using PDDL
Open accessAbstract
This work describes aspects of our plan validation tool, VAL. The tool was initially developed to support the 3rd International Planning Competition, but has subsequently been extended in order to exploit its capabilities in plan validation and development. In particular, the tool has been extended to include advanced features of PDDL2.1 which have proved important in mixed-initiative planning in a space operations project. Amongst these features, treatment of continuous effects is the most significant, with important effects on the semantic interpretation of plans. The tool has also been extended to keep abreast of developments in PDDL, providing critical support to participants and organisers of the 4th IPC.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The evaluation of binary verification and critique compared LLM outputs to ground truth provided by VAL [17].
“We evaluate the binary verification and the critique by comparing it to the ground truth provided by V AL [17].”
From On the Self-Verification Limitations of Large Language Models on Reasoning and Planning Tasks (2024) · cites this paper as [17]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 194
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- M. Ai-Change, J. Bresina, L. Charest, J. Hsu, A. Jónsson, R. Kanefsy, P. Maldegue, P. Morris, K. Rajan, and J. Ygle- sias. MAPGEN: Mixed intitive activity planning for the Mars Exploratory Rover mission. In Proceedings of Demonstration Systems Track, ICAPS'03, 2003.
- J. Allen and G. Ferguson. Human-machine collaborative planning. In Proceedings of 3rd International NASA Work- shop on Planning and Scheduling for Space, 2002.
- A. Blum and M. Furst. Fast Planning through Plan-graph Analysis. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 1995.
- M. Burstein and D. McDermott. Issues in the development of human-computer mixed-initiative planning. In B. Gorayska and J. Mey, editors, Cognitive Technology. Elsevier, 1996.
- M. Fox and D. Long. PDDL2.1: An extension to PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains. Journal of AI Re- search, 20, 2003.
- R. Howey and D. Long. Validating plans with continuous ef- fects. In Proc. of the 22nd Workshop of the UK Planning and Scheduling Special Interest Group, pages 115-124, 2003.
- R. Howey, D. Long, and M. Fox. Plan validation and mixed- initiative planning in space operations. In D. Borrajo, editor, Proceedings of ECAI Workshop on Planning: Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice, 2004.
- S. Lemai and F. Ingrand. Interleaving temporal planning and execution in robotics domains. In Proc. AAAI'04, 2004.
- D. Long and M. Fox. The 3rd International Planning Com- petition: Results and analysis. Journal of AI Research, 20, 2003.
- J. H. Mathews and K. K. Fink. Numerical Methods Using Matlab. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, USA, 4th edition, 2004.
- D. McAllester and D. Rosenblitt. Systematic nonlinear plan- ning. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), volume 2, pages 634-639, Anaheim, California, USA, 1991. AAAI Press/MIT Press.
- M. Veloso, A. Mulvehill, and M. Cox. Rationale-supported mixed-initiative case-based planning. In Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on AI and 9th Innovative Applica- tions of Artificial Intelligence Conference, 1997.
- M. Woods, R. Aylett, D. Long, M. Fox, and R. Ward. Assess- ing planning and scheduling technologies for deep space ex- ploration. In Proceedings of 4th British Conference on (Mo- bile) Robotics: Towards Intelligent Mobile Robots, 2003.
- Authors
- Howey, R., Long, D., & Fox, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- Venue
- 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- Published
- 2005-02-22
- Pages
- 294-301
- ISSN
- 1082-3409 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149361370
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) (publishedVersion)
- Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
- Keywords
- plan validation, mixed-initiative planning, automated planning, International Planning Competition, space operations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
