

![0_image_0.png](0_image_0.png) 
(a)
(b)
The LPG solutions for problems 49 to 61 are obtained doing only one iteration, since LPG was not able to complete the second iteration in a reasonable **amount of time. This explains**
the low time taken for LPG, and the lower quality of its solutions.

DriverLog: **We see in Figure 12(a) that** AltAltp **does reasonably well in terms of quality**
with respect to the other approaches in the DriverLog domain. Every planner is considered this time. AltAltpis one of the two planners able to scale up. Figure 12(b) shows **also that** AltAltp**is more efficient than any of the other planners.**
Zeno-Travel: **Only** AltAltp**, SAPA, and LPG are able to solve most of the problems in this** domain.11 AltAltp**solves them very efficiently (Figure 13(b)) providing very good solution**
quality (Figure 13(a)) compared to the temporal metric planners. Satellite: The results from the Satellite domain are shown in Figure 14. **Although every**
planner is considered, only AltAltp**, SAPA, and LPG can solve most of the problems. SAPA** solves all problems but produces lower quality solutions for many of them. AltAltp **produces** better solution quality than SAPA, and is also more efficient. **However,** AltAltp **produces**
lower quality solutions than LPG in four problems. LPG cannot solve one of the problems and produces lower quality solutions in 5 of them.

Summary: **In summary, we note that** AltAltp**is significantly superior in the elevator and**
gripper domains. It also performs very well in the DriverLog, ZenoTravel, and Satellite domains from the 2002 competition (Long & Fox, 2002). The performance of all planners is similar in the Schedule domain. In the Logistics domain, the quality of AltAltp **plans**
are second only to those of Blackbox for the problems that this optimal planner can solve. However, it scales up along with LPG to bigger size problems, returning very good step11. Blackbox and TP4 are not able to parse this domain.