Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applying the persistent set approach in temporal reasoning

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

Abstract

Since Hanks and McDermott raised the problem of temporal projection (e.g. the Yale shooting problem) and showed that classical nonmonotonic logics failed to solve it, many solutions have been proposed. However, as indicated by some researchers, most of them are not completely satisfactory. In Zhang and Foo [22], we presented a theory of actions called thepersistent set approach (PSA). In this paper, we extend our previous work to deal with temporal reasoning. Different from those minimality-based approaches, we propose a persistence-based formalization of actions within the situation calculus framework, and show that this gives natural and intuitive solutions to the problem of temporal projection in many cases. Explanations of some of the differences between persistence and minimality are given. We show that our approach also provides a unified framework for representing actions with disjunctive effects, while most of the current methods are inappropriate for dealing with these actions in the general case.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. A.B. Baker and M.L. Ginsberg, Temporal projection and explanation,Proc. 11th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1989) pp. 906–911.

  2. A.B. Baker, Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus, Artificial Intelligence 49(1991)5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, What are the limitations of the situation calculus?, in:Automated Reasoning, ed. R.S. Boyer (Kluwer, 1991) pp. 167–179.

  4. M.P. Georgeff, Actions, processes, and causality,Proc. 1986 Workshop on Reasoning About Actions and Plans, ed. A.L. Lansky (Kaufmann, 1988).

  5. M.L. Ginsberg and D.E. Smith, Reasoning about action. I: A possible worlds approach,Proc. 1987 Workshop on the Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, ed. F.M. Brown (Kaufmann, 1987).

  6. S. Hanks and D. McDermott, Default reasoning, nonmonotonic logics, and the frame problem,Proc. 5th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1986) pp. 328–333.

  7. S. Hanks and D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection, Artificial Intelligence 33(1987)379–412.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B.A. Haugh, Simple causal minimizations for temporal persistence and projection,Proc. 6th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1987) pp. 218–223.

  9. H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon, Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change, Artificial Intelligence 52(1991)263–294.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. Krautz, The logic of persistence,Proc. 5th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1986) pp. 401–405.

  11. V. Lifschitz, Formal theories of action,Proc. 1987 Workshop on the Frame Problem, ed. F.M. Brown (Kaufmann, 1987) pp. 35–57.

  12. V. Lifschitz, Pointwise circumscription, in:Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, ed. M.L. Ginsberg (Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  13. V. Lifschitz, Frames in the space of situations, Artificial Intelligence 46(1990)365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Provably correct theories of action (preliminary report),Proc. 9th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1991) pp. 349–354.

  15. F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Concurrent actions in the situation calculus,Proc. 10th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1992) pp. 590–595.

  16. J. McCarthy and P.J. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in:Machine Intelligence 4, eds. B. Meltxer and D. Mitchie (Edinburgh University Press, 1969) pp. 463–502.

  17. J. McCarthy, History of circumscription, Artificial Intelligence 59(1993)23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. Reiter, Equality and domain closure in first-order databases, J. Assoc. Comp. Machinery 27(1980)235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Y. Shoham, Chronological ignorance,Proc. 5th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1986) pp. 389–393.

  20. Y. Shoham,Reasoning about Change (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. Winslett, Reasoning about action using a possible models approach,Proc. 6th National Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (1988) pp. 89–93.

  22. Y. Zhang and N.Y. Foo, Reasoning about persistence: A theory of actions,Proc. 13th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Chembary, France, 1993 (Kaufmann, 1993) pp. 718–723.

  23. Y. Zhang and N.Y. Foo, Updating knowledge bases using a persistent set approach,Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems, Applications (World Sientific, Singapore, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Y. Zhang, Reasoning about persistence: A unified principle for state change, Ph.D. Thesis (1994).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology, Northern Territory University, 0811, Casurania, NT, Australia

    Yan Zhang

  2. Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, 2006, NSW, Australia

    Norman Y. Foo

Authors
  1. Yan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norman Y. Foo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Foo, N.Y. Applying the persistent set approach in temporal reasoning. Ann Math Artif Intell 14, 75–98 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530894

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530894

Keywords

Search

Navigation