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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. ETAI 3, 195–210 (1998)
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)
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)
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)
McCarthy, J.: Elaboration tolerance. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (CommonSense) (1998)
Amir, E.: Towards a formalization of elaboration tolerance: adding and deleting axioms. In: Frontiers of Belief Revision. Kluwer (2000)
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)
Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn Prentice Hall (2002)
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)
Papadimitriou, C.: Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley (1994)
Fenner, S.A., Fortnow, L., Kurtz, S.A.: Gap-definable counting classes. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 48, 116–148 (1994)
Gupta, S.: Closure properties and witness reduction. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 50, 412–432 (1995)
Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif. Intell. 153, 49–104 (2004)
Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artif. Intell. 83, 363–378 (1996)
Eiter, T., Gottlob, G.: The Complexity of Logic-Based Abduction. ACM Journal 42, 3–42 (1995)
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)
Larrosa, J., Schiex, T.: Solving weighted CSP by maintaining arc consistency. Artif. Intell. 159, 1–26 (2004)
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)
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)
Xing, Z., Zhang, W.: Maxsolver: an efficient exact algorithm for (weighted) maximum satisfiability. Artif. Intell. 164, 47–80 (2005)
Hanks, S., McDermott, D.: Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artif. Intell. 33, 379–412 (1987)
McDermott, D.: AIPS-98 planning competition results. (1998)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-007-9077-y