3 ms·
> Are we working on something similar? It's not the first time us two have this kind of discussion. > Then, if the original plan (the first to be put on the s
by maweki 3y ago
> Are we working on something similar?
It's not the first time us two have this kind of discussion.
> Then, if the original plan (the first to be put on the stack) doesn't work anymore, you just backtrack to make another plan from the current position, after checking the current state of the world.
Sure. That's the replanning. But actually you could backtrack into a plan you've already got that has the same prefix as the plan you've already chosen. Presumably a different plan differs from exactly this position and avoids the obstacle that made the current plan fail at that point. You'd have to keep track of the movements you've done. But as the plans are generated lazily, both concepts ('replanning' and 'choosing one of the original plans that hasn't been "superseded by reality" yet') might actually be the same.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago>> It's not the first time us two have this kind of discussion. Oh, I think I remember us talking about ILP. Sorry, I didn't recognise your username. Without avatars on HN I find it hard to remember who I've interacted with. I don't think we had talked about robotics or planning though. Anyway now I'll remember you :) >> Sure. That's the replanning. But actually you could backtrack into a plan you've already got that has the same prefix as the plan you've already chosen. Presumably a different plan differs from exactly this position and avoids the obstacle that made the current plan fail at that point. You'd have to keep track of the movements you've done. But as the plans are generated lazily, both concepts ('replanning' and 'choosing one of the original plans that hasn't been "superseded by reality" yet') might actually be the same. I think I see what you mean. There's certainly a problem with backtracking all the way to the point where a plan failed only to pick up again from that point- and probably fail again. I don't think I can reason about this from first principles. I'd have to try it out and see what works and what doesn't. EDIT: I went back and found our previous discussion. Hi again.