# Hierarchical Planning in the IPC

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04405 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.04405/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2019.

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [HDDL 2.1: Towards Defining a Formalism and a Semantics for Temporal HTN Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.07353/) (2023)
- [From Classical to Hierarchical: benchmarks for the HTN Track of the International Planning Competition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.05481/) (2021)
- [HDDL 2.1: Towards Defining an HTN Formalism with Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.01822/) (2022)
- [An Accurate HDDL Domain Learning Algorithm from Partial and Noisy Observations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.06882/) (2022)
- [Towards Numerical TOHTN Planning with SMT-based HTN-SAT Encoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03938/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Over the last year, the amount of research in hierarchical planning has increased, leading to significant improvements in the performance of planners. However, the research is diverging and planners are somewhat hard to compare against each other. This is mostly caused by the fact that there is no standard set of benchmark domains, nor even a common description language for hierarchical planning problems. As a consequence, the available planners support a widely varying set of features and (almost) none of them can solve (or even parse) any problem developed for another planner. With this paper, we propose to create a new track for the IPC in which hierarchical planners will compete. This competition will result in a standardised description language, broader support for core features of that language among planners, a set of benchmark problems, a means to fairly and objectively compare HTN planners, and for new challenges for planners.