Skip to main content

From Knowledge-Based Programs to Graded Belief-Based Programs, Part I: On-Line Reasoning

  • Chapter
Book cover Uncertainty, Rationality, and Agency

Abstract

Knowledge-based programs (KBPs) are a powerful notion for expressing action policies in which branching conditions refer to implicit knowledge and call for a deliberation task at execution time. However, branching conditions in KBPs cannot refer to possibly erroneous beliefs or to graded belief, such as

“if my belief that ϕ holds is high then do some action α else perform some sensing action β”.

The purpose of this paper is to build a framework where such programs can be expressed. In this paper we focus on the execution of such a program (a companion paper investigates issues relevant to the off-line evaluation and construction of such programs). We define a simple graded version of doxastic logic KD45 as the basis for the definition of belief-based programs. Then we study the way the agent’s belief state is maintained when executing such programs, which calls for revising belief states by observations (possibly unreliable or imprecise) and progressing belief states by physical actions (which may have normal as well as exceptional effects).

A premliminary and shorter version of this paper in the Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-04), pp. 368–372 (Laverny and Lang 2004).

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aucher, G.: 2004, ‘A combined system for update logic and belief revision’, in 7th Pacific Rim Int. Workshop on Multi-Agents (PRIMA2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacchus, F., J. Halpern, and H. Levesque: 1999, ‘Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus’, Artificial Intelligence 111, 171–208.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, C. and J. Lobo: 1997, ‘Defeasible specifications in action theories’, in Proceedings of IJCAI’97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benferhat, S., D. Dubois, and H. Prade: 2001, ‘A computational model for belief change and fusing ordered belief bases’, in M. A. Williams and H. Rott, (eds.), Frontiers in Belief Revision, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 109–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonet, B. and H. Geffner: 2001, ‘Planning and control in artificial intelligence. A unifying perspective’, Applied Intelligence 3(14), 237–252.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C.: 1998, ‘A unified model of qualitative belief change: A dynamical systems perspective’, Artificial Intelligence Journal 98(1–2), 281–316.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., R. Brafman, H. Hoos, and D. Poole: 1999, ‘Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus statements’, in Proceedings of the 15th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI’99), pp. 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, C., N. Friedman, and J. Halpern: 1998, ‘Belief revision with unreliable observations’, in Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98), pp. 127–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, H. and A. Darwiche: 2003, ‘On the revision of probabilistic beliefs using uncertain evidence’, in Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03).

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwiche, A., and J. Pearl: 1997, ‘On the logic of iterated belief revision’, Artificial Intelligence 87(1–2), 1–29.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fariñas del Cerro, L., and A. Herzig: 1991, ‘Modal logics for possibility theory’, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Fundamentals of AI Research (FAIR’91), Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dempster, A. P.: 1967, ‘Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivaluated mapping’, in Annals Mathematics Statistics 38, 325–339.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., J. Lang, and H. Prade: 1994, ‘Possibilistic logic’, in D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson (eds.), Handbook of logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 3, Clarendon Press — Oxford, pp. 439–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, D., and H. Prade: 1997, ‘A synthetic view of belief revision with uncertain inputs in the framework of possibility theory’, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 17(2–3), 295–324.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, R., J. Halpen, Y. Moses, and M. Vardi: 1995, Reasoning About Knowledge, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giunchiglia, E., J. Lee, N. McCain, V. Lifschitz, and H. Turner: 2003, ‘Nonmonotonic causal theories’, Artificial Intelligence 153, 49–104.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goldszmidt, M. and J. Pearl: 1992, ‘Rank-based systems: A simple approach to belief revision, belief update, and reasoning about evidence and actions’, in Proceedings of KR’92, pp. 661–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosskreutz, H. and G. Lakemeyer: 2000, ‘Turning high-level plans into robot programs in uncertain domains’, in Proc. ECAI-2000, pp. 548–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzig, A., J. Lang, D. Longin, and Th. Polacsek: 2000, ‘A logic for planning under partial observability’, in AAAI-00, pp. 768–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzig, A., J. Lang, and P. Marquis: 2003, ‘Action representation and partially observable planning in epistemic logic’, in Proceedings of IJCAI03, pp. 1067–1072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzig, A., J. Lang, and T. Polacsek: 2001, ‘A modal logic for epistemic tests’, in Proceedings of ECAI’2000, pp. 553–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaelbling, L. P., M. L. Littman, and A. R. Cassandra: 1998, ‘Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains’, Artificial Intelligence 101, 99–134.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J., P. Liberatore, and P. Marquis: 2003, ‘Propositional independence: Formula-variable independence and forgetting. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 18, 391–443.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, J., P. Marquis, and M.-A. Williams: 2001, ‘Updating epistemic states’, in Springer-Verlag (ed.), Lectures Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2256, Proceedings of 14th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverny, N. and J. Lang: 2004, ‘From knowledge-based programs to graded BBPs, part I: on-line reasoning’, in Proceedings of ECAI-04, pp. 368–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverny, N. and J. Lang: 2004, ‘From knowledge-based programs to graded BBPs, part II: off-line reasoning’, in Proceedings of IJCAI-05.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H.: 1996, ‘What is planning in the presence of sensing?’, in AAAI 96, pp. 1139–1146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H. and G. Lakemeyer: 2000, The Logic of Knowledge Bases, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F.: 1996, ‘Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions’, in Proc. of AAAI’96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. and R. Reiter: 1994, ‘Forget it!, in Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance, New Orleans, pp. 154–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R.: 2001a, Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R.: 2001b, ‘On knowledge-based programming with sensing in the situation calculus’, ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 2, 433–457.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Scherl, R. B. and H. J. Levesque: 1993, ‘The frame problem and knowledge-producing actions’, in AAAI-93, pp. 698–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, S., M. Pagnucco, Y. Lesperance, and H. Levesque: 2000, ‘Iterated belief change in the situation calculus’, in Proceedings of KR2000, pp. 527–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, W.: 1988, ‘Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states’, in William L. Harper and Brian Skyrms (eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics, volume 2, Kluwer Academic Pub., pp. 105–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thielscher, M.: 2001, ‘Planning with noisy actions (preliminary report)’, in M. Brooks, D. Powers, and M. Stumptner (eds.), Proceedings of the Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, LNAI, Adelaide, Australia, December 2001, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Hoek, W. and J.-J.Ch. Meyer: 1991, ‘Graded modalities for epistemic logic’, Logique et Analyse 133–134, 251–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ditmarsch, H.: 2004, Prolegomena to Dynamic Belief Revision. Technical report, University of Otago, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Linder, B., W. van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer: 1994, ‘Tests as epistemic updates’, in Proceedings of ECAI 1994, pp. 331–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M.-A: 1994, ‘Transmutations of knowledge systems’, in Proceedings of KR’94, pp. 619–629.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laverny, N., Lang, J. (2005). From Knowledge-Based Programs to Graded Belief-Based Programs, Part I: On-Line Reasoning. In: Uncertainty, Rationality, and Agency. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4631-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4631-6_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-4630-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-4631-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics