Papers › Flexible FOND Planning with Explicit Fairness Assumptions
Flexible FOND Planning with Explicit Fairness Assumptions
Ivan D. Rodriguez, Blai Bonet, Sebastian Sardina, Hector Geffner
We consider the problem of reaching a propositional goal condition in fully-observable non-deterministic (FOND) planning under a general class of fairness assumptions that are given explicitly. The fairness assumptions are of the form A/B and say that state trajectories that contain infinite occurrences of an action a from A in a state s and finite occurrence of actions from B, must also contain infinite occurrences of action a in s followed by each one of its possible outcomes. The infinite trajectories that violate this condition are deemed as unfair, and the solutions are policies for which all the fair trajectories reach a goal state. We show that strong and strong-cyclic FOND planning, as well as QNP planning, a planning model introduced recently for generalized planning, are all special cases of FOND planning with fairness assumptions of this form which can also be combined. FOND+ planning, as this form of planning is called, combines the syntax of FOND planning with some of the versatility of LTL for expressing fairness constraints. A new planner is implemented by reducing FOND+ planning to answer set programs, and the performance of the planner is evaluated in comparison with FOND and QNP planners, and LTL synthesis tools.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections