Quantitative formal models capture probabilistic behaviour, real-time aspects, or general continuous dynamics. A number of tools support their automatic analysis with respect to dependability or performance properties. QComp 2019 is the first, friendly competition among such tools. It focuses on stochastic formalisms from Markov chains to probabilistic timed automata specified in the Jani model exchange format, and on probabilistic reachability, expected-reward, and steady-state properties. QComp draws its benchmarks from the new Quantitative Verification Benchmark Set. Participating tools, which include probabilistic model checkers and planners as well as simulation-based tools, are evaluated in terms of performance, versatility, and usability. In this paper, we report on the challenges in setting up a quantitative verification competition, present the results of QComp 2019, summarise the lessons learned, and provide an outlook on the features of the next edition of QComp.

Unavoidable dead-ends are common in many probabilistic planning problems, e.g. when actions may fail or when operating under resource constraints. An important objective in such settings is MaxProb, determining the maximal probability with which the goal can be reached, and a policy achieving that probability. Yet algorithms for MaxProb probabilistic planning are severely underexplored, to the extent that there is scant evidence of what the empirical state of the art actually is. We close this gap with a comprehensive empirical analysis. We design and explore a large space of heuristic search algorithms, systematizing known algorithms and contributing several new algorithm variants. We consider MaxProb, as well as weaker objectives that we baptize AtLeastProb (requiring to achieve a given goal probabilty threshold) and ApproxProb (requiring to compute the maximum goal probability up to a given accuracy). We explore both the general case where there may be 0-reward cycles, and the practically relevant special case of acyclic planning, such as planning with a limited action-cost budget. We design suitable termination criteria, search algorithm variants, dead-end pruning methods using classical planning heuristics, and node selection strategies. We design a benchmark suite comprising more than 1000 instances adapted from the IPPC, resource-constrained planning, and simulated penetration testing. Our evaluation clarifies the state of the art, characterizes the behavior of a wide range of heuristic search algorithms, and demonstrates significant benefits of our new algorithm variants.

In many usage scenarios of AI Planning technology, users will want not just a plan π but an explanation of the space of possible plans, justifying π. In particular, in oversubscription planning where not all goals can be achieved, users may ask why a conjunction A of goals is not achieved by π. We propose to answer this kind of question with the goal conjunctions B excluded by A, i. e., that could not be achieved if A were to be enforced. We formalize this approach in terms of plan-property dependencies, where plan properties are propositional formulas over the goals achieved by a plan, and dependencies are entailment relations in plan space. We focus on entailment relations of the form ∧g∈A g ⇒ ⌝ ∧g∈B g, and devise analysis techniques globally identifying all such relations, or locally identifying the implications of a single given plan property (user question) ∧g∈A g. We show how, via compilation, one can analyze dependencies between a richer form of plan properties, specifying formulas over action subsets touched by the plan. We run comprehensive experiments on adapted IPC benchmarks, and find that the suggested analyses are reasonably feasible at the global level, and become significantly more effective at the local level.

No abstract

Inspired by work on Stackelberg security games, we introduce Stackelberg planning, where a leader player in a classical planning task chooses a minimum-cost action sequence aimed at maximizing the plan cost of a follower player in the same task. Such Stackelberg planning can provide useful analyses not only in planning-based security applications like network penetration testing, but also to measure robustness against perturbances in more traditional planning applications (e. g. with a leader sabotaging road network connections in transportation-type domains). To identify all equilibria---exhibiting the leader’s own-cost-vs.-follower-cost trade-off---we design leader-follower search, a state space search at the leader level which calls in each state an optimal planner at the follower level. We devise simple heuristic guidance, branch-and-bound style pruning, and partial-order reduction techniques for this setting. We run experiments on Stackelberg variants of IPC and pentesting benchmarks. In several domains, Stackelberg planning is quite feasible in practice.