mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learning to Ground Existentially Quantified Goals

arXiv 2409.20259 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2024cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Goal instructions for autonomous AI agents cannot assume that objects have unique names. Instead, objects in goals must be referred to by providing suitable descriptions. However, this raises problems in both classical planning and generalized planning. The standard approach to handling existentially quantified goals in classical planning involves compiling them into a DNF formula that encodes all possible variable bindings and adding dummy actions to map each DNF term into the new, dummy goal. This preprocessing is exponential in the number of variables. In generalized planning, the problem is different: even if general policies can deal with any initial situation and goal, executing a general policy requires the goal to be grounded to define a value for the policy features. The problem of grounding goals, namely finding the objects to bind the goal variables, is subtle: it is a generalization of classical planning, which is a special case when there are no goal variables to bind, and constraint reasoning, which is a special case when there are no actions. In this work, we address the goal grounding problem with a novel supervised learning approach. A GNN architecture, trained to predict the cost of partially quantified goals over small domain instances is tested on larger instances involving more objects and different quantified goals. The proposed architecture is evaluated experimentally over several planning domains where generalization is tested along several dimensions including the number of goal variables and objects that can bind such variables. The scope of the approach is also discussed in light of the known relationship between GNNs and C2 logics.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2024.

Builds on

13 of 36 references.

References · 13

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2018How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?cited by 4,393
  3. 2017Neural Message Passing for Quantum Chemistrycited by 3,487
  4. 2018Weisfeiler and Leman Go Neural: Higher-order Graph Neural Networkscited by 881
  5. 2018BabyAI: A Platform to Study the Sample Efficiency of Grounded Language Learningcited by 244
  6. 2020A Benchmark for Systematic Generalization in Grounded Language Understandingcited by 108
  7. 2014The LAMA Planner: Guiding Cost-Based Anytime Planning with Landmarkscited by 87
  8. 2021The Logic of Graph Neural Networkscited by 85
  9. 2019Graph Neural Networks for Maximum Constraint Satisfactioncited by 46
  10. 2019ASNets: Deep Learning for Generalised Planningcited by 42
  11. 2021Learning General Optimal Policies with Graph Neural Networks: Expressive Power, Transparency, and Limitscited by 38
  12. 2020Generalized Planning With Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 35
1 more
  1. 2022Learning Generalized Policies Without Supervision Using GNNscited by 22

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.