Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing action descriptions based on semantic preferences

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The focus of this paper is on action domain descriptions whose meaning can be represented by transition diagrams. We introduce several semantic measures to compare such action descriptions, based on preferences over possible states of the world and preferences over some given conditions (observations, assertions, etc.) about the domain, as well as the probabilities of possible transitions. This preference information is used to assemble a weight which is assigned to an action description. As applications of this approach, we study updating action descriptions and identifying elaboration tolerant action descriptions, with respect to some given conditions. With a semantic approach based on preferences, not only, for some problems, we get more plausible solutions, but also, for some problems without any solutions due to too strong conditions, we can identify which conditions to relax to obtain a solution. We further study computational issues, and give a characterization of the computational complexity of computing the semantic measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. ETAI 3, 195–210 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M., Senko, J.: Updating action domain descriptions. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 418–423 (2005)

  3. Alferes, J.J., Banti, F., Brogi, A.: From logic programs updates to action description updates. In: Proceedings Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA V). LNCS, vol. 3487, pp. 52–77. Springer (2004)

  4. Herzig, A., Perrussel, L., Varzinczak, I.: Elaborating domain descriptions. In: Brewka, G., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 397–401. IOS Press (2006)

  5. McCarthy, J.: Elaboration tolerance. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (CommonSense) (1998)

  6. Amir, E.: Towards a formalization of elaboration tolerance: adding and deleting axioms. In: Frontiers of Belief Revision. Kluwer (2000)

  7. Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on AI (AAAI), pp. 623–630 (1998)

  8. Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn Prentice Hall (2002)

  9. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M., Senko, J.: Resolving conflicts in action descriptions. In Brewka, G., et al. (eds.) Proceedings ECAI, pp. 367–371. IOS Press (2006)

  10. Papadimitriou, C.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)

  11. Fenner, S.A., Fortnow, L., Kurtz, S.A.: Gap-definable counting classes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 48, 116–148 (1994)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Gupta, S.: Closure properties and witness reduction. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 50, 412–432 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153, 49–104 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artif. Intell. 83, 363–378 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: The Complexity of Logic-Based Abduction. ACM Journal 42, 3–42 (1995)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Stroe, B., Subrahmanian, V.S., Dasgupta, S.: Optimal status sets of heterogeneous agent programs. In: Dignum, F., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the 4rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 709–715 (2005)

  17. Larrosa, J., Schiex, T.: Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artif. Intell. 159, 1–26 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 7, 499–562 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Syrjänen, T., Niemelä, I.: The Smodels system. In: Eiter, T., et al. (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR). LNCS, vol. 2173, pp. 434–438. Springer (2001)

  20. Xing, Z., Zhang, W.: Maxsolver: an efficient exact algorithm for (weighted) maximum satisfiability. Artif. Intell. 164, 47–80 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanks, S., McDermott, D.: Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artif. Intell. 33, 379–412 (1987)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. McDermott, D.: AIPS-98 planning competition results. (1998)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Eiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M. et al. Comparing action descriptions based on semantic preferences. Ann Math Artif Intell 50, 273–304 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-007-9077-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-007-9077-y

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000)

Navigation