Intelligent Service Robotics

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 275–291

Answer set programming for collaborative housekeeping robotics: representation, reasoning, and execution

Special Issue

Abstract

Answer set programming (ASP) is a knowledge representation and reasoning paradigm with high-level expressive logic-based formalism, and efficient solvers; it is applied to solve hard problems in various domains, such as systems biology, wire routing, and space shuttle control. In this paper, we present an application of ASP to housekeeping robotics. We show how the following problems are addressed using computational methods/tools of ASP: (1) embedding commonsense knowledge automatically extracted from the commonsense knowledge base ConceptNet, into high-level representation, and (2) embedding (continuous) geometric reasoning and temporal reasoning about durations of actions, into (discrete) high-level reasoning. We introduce a planning and monitoring algorithm for safe execution of plans, so that robots can recover from plan failures due to collision with movable objects whose presence and location are not known in advance or due to heavy objects that cannot be lifted alone. Some of the recoveries require collaboration of robots. We illustrate the applicability of ASP on several housekeeping robotics problems, and report on the computational efficiency in terms of CPU time and memory.

Keywords

Knowledge representation Reasoning  Housekeeping robotics Answer set programming Commonsense knowledge 

References

  1. 1.
    Aker E, Erdogan A, Erdem E, Patoglu V (2011) Causal reasoning for planning and coordination of multiple housekeeping robots. In: Proceedings of LPNMR’11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aker E, Erdogan A, Erdem E, Patoglu V (2011) Housekeeping with multiple autonomous robots: representation, reasoning and execution. In: Proceedings of commonsense’11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka G, Eiter T, Truszczynski M (2011) Answer set programming at a glance. Commun ACM 54(12):92–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bylander T (1994) The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artif Intell 69(1–2):165–204Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Decker K, Lesser V (1992) Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. Int J Intell Coop Inf Syst 1:319–346Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eén N, Sörensson N (2003) An extensible sat-solver. In: Proceedings of SAT, pp 502–518Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Erdem E, Erdem Y, Erdogan H, Oztok U (2011) Finding answers and generating explanations for complex biomedical queries. In: Proceedings of AAAIGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erdem E, Haspalamutgil K, Palaz C, Patoglu V, Uras T (2011) Combining high-level causal reasoning with low-level geometric reasoning and motion planning for robotic manipulation. In: Proceedings of ICRA Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erdem E, Wong MDF (2004) Rectilinear steiner tree construction using answer set programming. In: Proceedings of ICLP, pp 386–399Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ferrein A, Fritz C, Lakemeyer G (2005) Using GOLOG for deliberation and team coordination in robotic soccer. Künstliche Intelligenz 1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finin TW, Fritzson R, McKay DP, McEntire R (1994) KQML as an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of CIKM, pp 456–463Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gebser M, Guziolowski C, Ivanchev M, Schaub T, Siegel A, Thiele S, Veber P (2010) Repair and prediction (under inconsistency) in large biological networks with answer set programming. In: Proceedings of KRGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gebser M, Kaminski R, Kaufmann B, Ostrowski M, Schaub T, Thiele S (2008) Engineering an incremental ASP solver. In: Proceedings of ICLP, pp 190–205Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1991) Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener Comput 9:365–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giunchiglia E, Lee J, Lifschitz V, McCain N, Turner H (2004) Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif Intell 153:49–104MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lavalle SM (1998) Rapidly-exploring random trees: a new tool for path planning. Tech. repGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lesser V, Decker K, Carver N, Garvey A, Neimen D, Prassad M, Wagner T (1998) Evolution of the GPGP domain independent coordination framework. Tech. rep., University of MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lifschitz V (2008) What is answer set programming? In: Proceedings of AAAIGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu H, Singh P (2004) ConceptNet: a practical commonsense reasoning toolkit. BT Technol J 22Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lundh R, Karlsson L, Saffiotti A (2008) Autonomous functional configuration of a network robot system. Robot Auton Syst 56(10):819–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McCain N, Turner H (1997) Causal theories of action and change. In: Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI, pp 460–465Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nogueira M, Balduccini M, Gelfond M, Watson R, Barry M (2001) An a-prolog decision support system for the space shuttle. In: Proceedings of PADL. Springer, Berlin, pp 169–183Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    O’Brien PRN (1998) FIPA–towards a standard for software agents. BT Technol J 16(3):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simons P, Niemelä I, Soininen T (2002) Extending and implementing the stable model semantics. Artif Intell 138:181–234CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith RG (1980) The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans Comput 29(12):1104–1113Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tari L, Anwar S, Liang S, Hakenberg J, Baral C (2010) Synthesis of pharmacokinetic pathways through knowledge acquisition and automated reasoning. In: Proceedings of PSB, pp 465–476Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vikrey W (1961) Computer speculation, auctions, and competitive sealed tenders. J Finance 16:8–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    de Weerdt MM, Clement B (2009) Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiagent Grid Syst 5:345–355Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesSabancı UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesSabancı UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations