Difference between revisions of "Main Page"

From Tamp Benchmarking
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== About this Wiki ==
 
== About this Wiki ==
  
Following the discussions at the TAMP workshop in RSS2016, a document was sketched for initiating thinking together about benchmarking for CTAMP planners. This wiki was created based on this document : we need more space to conduct proper discussions, and we may also have to share downloadable content later on. For now, I simply copy-pasted the contents of the previous document into different pages. Participants are invited to comment, correct, discuss, and bring their ideas.
+
Following the discussions at the TAMP workshop in RSS2016, a document was sketched for initiating thinking together about benchmarking for CTAMP planners. This wiki was created based on the previous document : we need more space to conduct proper discussions, and we may also have to share downloadable content later on. For now, the contents of the document were simply copy-pasted into different pages (sections Contents and Discussions below). Participants are invited to comment, correct, discuss, and bring their ideas.
  
 
== Aims ==
 
== Aims ==
 
My perception of the current state of the field is that different groups are still exploring “variations” of the CTAMP problem, based on their own research interests, tools and experience. For this reason, defining a common language to specify CTAMP problems is, in my opinion, premature at this stage (or rather: it has to be done sooner or later, but this document does not address this issue).
 
  
 
My proposal is to '''start with a set of simple benchmark problems, which can be handled by the largest number of existing systems.''' This requires to identify the least common denominator, in terms of requirements and problem specification, at logical and geometric levels.
 
My proposal is to '''start with a set of simple benchmark problems, which can be handled by the largest number of existing systems.''' This requires to identify the least common denominator, in terms of requirements and problem specification, at logical and geometric levels.
Line 13: Line 11:
 
== How to edit this document ==
 
== How to edit this document ==
  
The original document has been split into pages.
+
The original document has been split into pages corresponding to the sections of the document.
 +
 
 +
In the Contents section, the comments have been pasted in the Discussion pages, in the form of discussion threads. We should edit the main pages whenever an agreement has been reached.
 +
 
 +
In the Discussion section, the main page is organized as a discussion thread.
  
 
== Contents ==
 
== Contents ==

Revision as of 18:27, 9 January 2017

About this Wiki

Following the discussions at the TAMP workshop in RSS2016, a document was sketched for initiating thinking together about benchmarking for CTAMP planners. This wiki was created based on the previous document : we need more space to conduct proper discussions, and we may also have to share downloadable content later on. For now, the contents of the document were simply copy-pasted into different pages (sections Contents and Discussions below). Participants are invited to comment, correct, discuss, and bring their ideas.

Aims

My proposal is to start with a set of simple benchmark problems, which can be handled by the largest number of existing systems. This requires to identify the least common denominator, in terms of requirements and problem specification, at logical and geometric levels.

These requirements will be extended later on, but in order to reach a “critical mass” so that enough people start using these benchmarks and disseminate them through their publications, we need to begin with something simple and accessible.

How to edit this document

The original document has been split into pages corresponding to the sections of the document.

In the Contents section, the comments have been pasted in the Discussion pages, in the form of discussion threads. We should edit the main pages whenever an agreement has been reached.

In the Discussion section, the main page is organized as a discussion thread.

Contents

Discussions

References

  1. Neil T. Dantam, Zachary K. Kingston, Swarat Chaudhuri, and Lydia E. Kavraki, Incremental Task and Motion Planning: A Constraint-Based Approach, (TAMP Workshop, RSS2016).