Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,074

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 133 of the 133 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Decision-Theoretic Planning: Structural Assumptions and Computational Leverage

Open access
Boutilier, C., Dean, T., Hanks, S.·1999·Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Abstract

Planning under uncertainty is a central problem in the study of automated sequential decision making, and has been addressed by researchers in many different fields, including AI planning, decision analysis, operations research, control theory and economics. While the assumptions and perspectives adopted in these areas often differ in substantial ways, many planning problems of interest to researchers in these fields can be modeled as Markov decision processes (MDPs) and analyzed using the techniques of decision theory. This paper presents an overview and synthesis of MDP-related methods, showing how they provide a unifying framework for modeling many classes of planning problems studied in AI. It also describes structural properties of MDPs that, when exhibited by particular classes of problems, can be exploited in the construction of optimal or approximately optimal policies or plans. Planning problems commonly possess structure in the reward and value functions used to describe performance criteria, in the functions used to describe state transitions and observations, and in the relationships among features used to describe states, actions, rewards, and observations. Specialized representations, and algorithms employing these representations, can achieve computational leverage by exploiting these various forms of structure. Certain AI techniques -- in particular those based on the use of structured, intensional representations -- can be viewed in this way. This paper surveys several types of representations for both classical and decision-theoretic planning problems, and planning algorithms that exploit these representations in a number of different ways to ease the computational burden of constructing policies or plans. It focuses primarily on abstraction, aggregation and decomposition techniques based on AI-style representations.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1613/jair.575

Cites

133 of 133 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 133 references

Cited by

See all 1,074

Metadata

Authors
Boutilier, C., Dean, T., & Hanks, S.
Venue
Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research
Published
1999-07-01
Volume
11
Pages
1-94
ISSN
1076-9757 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061504687
Cited by
1,074
References
133
FWCI
54.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
diamond

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Decision-Theoretic Planning: Structural Assumptions and Computational Leverage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1613/jair.575
The paper
Boutilier, C., Dean, T., & Hanks, S. (1999). Decision-Theoretic Planning: Structural Assumptions and Computational Leverage. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.575

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.