-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 145
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update axiom documentation #233
Changes from 2 commits
e430a0f
56574b1
b7efd04
4c07ed5
ae8932f
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -17,9 +17,9 @@ class LandmarkSumHeuristic : public LandmarkHeuristic { | |
int get_heuristic_value(const State &ancestor_state) override; | ||
public: | ||
LandmarkSumHeuristic( | ||
tasks::AxiomHandlingType axioms, | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I'm not happy about the order here because landmark heuristics always had the factory as first option which has no default value. Now we have axioms as first option here with a default value, meaning we cannot write This is also the reason the tests fail at the moment, but before I change the parameter strings anywhere I'd be interested if someone comes up with a better option. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I agree that One issue is the parameter test that checks if the parameters in the cc constructor match the parameters in the documentation of the feature. If we do A third option would be to not call |
||
const std::shared_ptr<LandmarkFactory> &lm_factory, bool pref, | ||
bool prog_goal, bool prog_gn, bool prog_r, | ||
tasks::AxiomHandlingType axioms, | ||
const std::shared_ptr<AbstractTask> &transform, | ||
bool cache_estimates, const std::string &description, | ||
utils::Verbosity verbosity); | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Technically we still have a bug that could maybe? lead to unsafe estimates on tasks with axioms, namely the one reported in issue247 and issue442. The short version is that we can introduce incorrect greedy-necessary orderings when derived variables are present. Before updating the landmark progression this could lead to incorrect dead-ends. With the new progression method this doesn't happen anymore on the tasks reported in these issues, but we're not entirely sure if it's guaranteed to not happen anymore.