IPC-2008 Domains

Eleven domain families were used for IPC-2008:

We plan to eventually provide detailed information for each of these domains. In the meantime, please send an email to the competition organizers (see home page) if you have questions about the IPC-2008 benchmark suite which are not answered by these pages.

Domain archive and directory structure

The problem instances are grouped by track, domain and domain formulation (see below) following the general pattern ipc2008/<TRACK>/<DOMAIN>-<FORMULATION>/p<NUMBER>.pddl. Problem instances within each domain are numbered from 1 to 30. For each instance, a separate domain file is provided. In most domain formulations, all 30 domain files are identical.


Domains and domain families

In cases where a domain family was used in more than one track, different domains were used as appropriate for that track. For example, three different peg solitaire domains were used:

The sequential satisficing and sequential optimization tracks used the same domains apart from the Cyber Security domain which was limited to the satisficing track due to the large problem sizes. However, the satisficing tracks typically used larger (or otherwise more difficult) problem instances than the optimization track. The exceptions to this were the PARC printer, peg solitaire and Scanalyzer-3D domains, where both tracks used the same instance set.

/!\ If you refer to these benchmark suites in your papers, make sure to mention whether you mean the sequential or optimization track instances.

Domain formulations

As in previous IPCs, we sometimes include different formulations of the same domain, for example a more natural formulation that requires ADL features and a compiled STRIPS version. Whenever a domain has different alternative formulations, these model exactly the same problem set and have exactly the same optimal solution quality, so results between different formulations are comparable. For example, the net benefit openstacks domain has three formulations:

All these formulations additionally require support for action costs and soft goals. (These are general requirements of the net benefit track.) However, see below for versions of these domains with soft goals compiled away.

Compiled net benefit track instances

Emil Keyder and Hector Geffner have shown that soft goals do not add expressive power to the classical planning model with action costs, and a procedure for compiling planning instances with soft goals into equivalent instances with only action costs was described in Soft Goals Can Be Compiled Away. The tar file linked below contains versions of all instances from the net benefit track with soft goals compiled into action costs. Note that this formulation of the domains was not used in the competition. Please email questions, comments and bug reports concerning these instances to emil.keyder at upf.edu.


Note that the domain file may vary in these formulations from instance to instance, even if the files are identical for the corresponding original domain.

Domains (last edited 2010-10-20 07:17:17 by MalteHelmert)