Advertisement

Answer Set Planning in Single- and Multi-agent Environments

Technical Contribution
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

We present the main ideas of answer set planning in both single- and multi-agent environments. Specifically, we describe a systematic translation of a dynamic domain—given as set of statements in an action language such as \(\mathcal{B}\)—into a logic program which can be used for planning and other reasoning tasks (e.g., diagnosis) given the dynamic domain. We illustrate the issues of answer set planning in different settings and their solutions using a well-known problem domain, the Kiva robot system.

Keywords

Answer set planning Multi-agent planning Action languages 

References

  1. 1.
    Balduccini M, Gelfond M (2003) Diagnostic reasoning with A-Prolog. J Theory Pract Log Program (TPLP) 3(4–5):425–461MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balduccini M, Gelfond M (2003) Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In: International symposium on logical formalization of commonsense reasoning, AAAI spring symposium series, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balduccini M, Gelfond M, Watson R, Nogueira M (2001) The USA-advisor: a case study in answer set planning. In: Lectures notes in artificial intelligence (proceedings of the sixth international conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, LPNMR’01), Springer, vol 2173, pp 439–442Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral C, Son TC, Pontelli E (2010) Reasoning about multi-agent domains using action language \(\cal{C}\): a preliminary study. In: Dix J, Fisher M, Novák P (eds) Computational logic in multi-agent systems—10th international workshop, CLIMA X, Hamburg, Germany, September 9–10, 2009, Springer, vol 6214. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 46–63 (revised selected and invited papers) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buccafurri F, Leone N, Rullo P (1997) Adding weak constraints to disjunctive datalog. In: Proceedings of the 1997 joint conference on declarative programming APPIA-GULP-PRODE’97, Grado, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durfee E (1999) Distributed problem solving and planning. In: Weiss G (ed) Muliagent systems (A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 121–164Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1998) Action languages. Electron Trans. Artif Intell 3(6):195–210Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL—the planning domain definition language. Version 1.2. Tech. Rep. CVC TR98003/DCS TR1165, Yale Center for Comp, Vis and CtrlGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayes PJ, McCarthy J (1960) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B, Michie D (eds) Machine intelligence, vol 4. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 463–502Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kautz H, Selman B (1992) Planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of ECAI-92, Vienna, Austria, pp 359–363Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Le HV, Pontelli E (2005) An investigation of sharing strategies for answer set solvers and SAT solvers. In: Cunha JC, Medeiros PD (eds) Euro-Par 2005, parallel processing, 11th international Euro-Par conference, Lisbon, Portugal, August 30–September 2, 2005, Springer. Proceedings, vol 3648. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 750–760Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lifschitz V (2002) Answer set programming and plan generation. Artif Intell 138(1–2):39–54MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marek V, Truszczyński M (1999) Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt K, Marek VW, Truszczynski M, Warren DS (eds) The logic programming paradigm: a 25-year perspective, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 375–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nguyen VD, Obermeier P, Son TC, Schaub T, Yeoh W (2017) Generalized target assignment and path finding using answer set programming. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia, pp 1216–1223Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niemelä I (1999) Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann Math Artif Intell 25(3, 4):241–273MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schneidenbach L, Schnor B, Gebser M, Kaminski R, Kaufmann B, Schaub T (2009) Experiences running a parallel answer set solver on blue gene. In: Ropo M, Westerholm J, Dongarra J (eds) Recent advances in parallel virtual machine and message passing interface, 16th European PVM/MPI users’ group meeting, Espoo, Finland, September 7–10, 2009, Springer, vol 5759, Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, pp 64–72Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Son T, Pontelli E, Sakama C (2009) Logic programming for multiagent planning with negotiation. In: Hill PM, Warren DS (eds) Logic programming, 25th international conference, ICLP 2009, Pasadena, CA, USA, July 14–17, 2009, Springer. Proceedings, vol 5649. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 99–114Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Son TC, Pontelli E, Nguyen N, Sakama C (2014) Formalizing negotiations using logic programming. ACM Trans Comput Log 15(2):12MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Son TC, Pontelli E, Nguyen NH (2010) Planning for multiagent using ASP-Prolog. In: Dix J, Fisher M, Novák P (eds) Computational logic in multi-agent systems—10th international workshop, CLIMA X, Hamburg, Germany, September 9–10, 2009, Springer, vol 6214, Lecture notes in computer science, pp 1–21 (revised selected and invited papers) Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wurman P, D’Andrea R, Mountz M (2008) Coordinating hundreds of cooperative, autonomous vehicles in warehouses. AI Mag 29(1):9–20Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Saint Joseph’s UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations