Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applications of Action Languages in Cognitive Robotics

  • Chapter
Book cover Correct Reasoning

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 7265))

Abstract

We summarize some applications of action languages in robotics, focusing on the following three challenges: 1) bridging the gap between low-level continuous geometric reasoning and high-level discrete causal reasoning; 2) embedding background/commonsense knowledge in high-level reasoning; 3) planning/prediction with complex (temporal) goals/constraints. We discuss how these challenges can be handled using computational methods of action languages, and elaborate on the usefulness of action languages to extend the classical 3-layer robot control architecture.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

  1. Aker, E., Erdogan, A., Erdem, E., Patoglu, V.: Causal Reasoning for Planning and Coordination of Multiple Housekeeping Robots. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 311–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Aker, E., Erdogan, A., Erdem, E., Patoglu, V.: Housekeeping with multiple autonomous robots: Representation, reasoning and execution. In: Proc. of Commonsense (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Akman, V., Erdogan, S.T., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Representing the zoo world and the traffic world in the language of the causal calculator. Artificial Intelligence 153(1-2), 105–140 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Baral, C., Chancellor, K., Tran, N., Tran, N.: Representing and reasoning about signal networks: an illustration using nfkappab dependent signaling pathways. In: Proc. of CSB, pp. 623–628 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Representing concurrent actions in extended logic programming. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 866–873 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Reasoning agents in dynamic domains, pp. 257–279. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Reasoning about intended actions. In: Proc. of AAAI, pp. 689–694 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Provetti, A.: Representing actions: Laws, observations and hypotheses. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 201–243 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Beetz, M., Buss, M., Wollherr, D.: Cognitive Technical Systems — What Is the Role of Artificial Intelligence? In: Hertzberg, J., Beetz, M., Englert, R. (eds.) KI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4667, pp. 19–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Bornscheuer, S.E., Thielscher, M.: Representing Concurrent Actions and Solving Conflicts. In: Dreschler-Fischer, L., Nebel, B. (eds.) KI 1994. LNCS, vol. 861, pp. 16–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Bornscheuer, S.E., Thielscher, M.: Representing concurrent actions and solving conflicts. Logic Journal of the IGPL 4(3), 355–368 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cabalar, P.: Pertinence for Causal Representation of Action Domains. Ph.D. thesis, University of Corunna (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Caldiran, O., Haspalamutgil, K., Ok, A., Palaz, C., Erdem, E., Patoglu, V.: Bridging the Gap between High-Level Reasoning and Low-Level Control. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 342–354. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Casolary, M., Lee, J.: Representing the language of the causal calculator in answer set programming. In: Proc. of ICLP (Technical Communications), pp. 51–61 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Delgrande, J.P., Schaub, T., Tompits, H.: An extended query language for action languages and its application to aggregates and preferences. In: Proc. of NMR, pp. 362–370 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Doherty, P., Gustafsson, J., Karlsson, L., Kvarnström, J.: Tal: Temporal action logics language specification and tutorial. ETAI 2, 273–306 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Dornhege, C., Eyerich, P., Keller, T., Trüg, S., Brenner, M., Nebel, B.: Semantic attachments for domain-independent planning systems. In: Proc. of ICAPS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dworschak, S., Grell, S., Nikiforova, V.J., Schaub, T., Selbig, J.: Modeling biological networks by action languages via answer set programming. Constraints 13(1-2), 21–65 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Dworschak, S., Grote, T., König, A., Schaub, T., Veber, P.: The system bioc for reasoning about biological models in action language c. In: Proc. of ICTAI (1), pp. 11–18 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Eén, N., Sörensson, N.: An Extensible SAT-solver. In: Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A. (eds.) SAT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2919, pp. 502–518. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Fink, M., Senko, J.: Updating action domain descriptions. Artificial Intelligence 174(15), 1172–1221 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, II: The DLV\(^{\mbox{k}}\) system. Artificial Intelligence 144(1–2), 157–211 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: A Deductive System for Non-monotonic Reasoning. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 363–374. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Erdem, E., Haspalamutgil, K., Palaz, C., Patoglu, V., Uras, T.: Combining high-level causal reasoning with low-level geometric reasoning and motion planning for robotic manipulation. In: Proc. of ICRA, pp. 4575–4581 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Erdem, E., Lifschitz, V., Wong, M.D.F.: Wire Routing and Satisfiability Planning. In: Palamidessi, C., Moniz Pereira, L., Lloyd, J.W., Dahl, V., Furbach, U., Kerber, M., Lau, K.-K., Sagiv, Y., Stuckey, P.J. (eds.) CL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1861, pp. 822–836. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Fox, M., Long, D.: Pddl2.1: An extension to pddl for expressing temporal planning domains. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 20, 61–124 (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Gebser, M., Grote, T., Schaub, T.: Coala: A Compiler from Action Languages to ASP. In: Janhunen, T., Niemelä, I. (eds.) JELIA 2010. LNCS, vol. 6341, pp. 360–364. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Thiele, S.: Engineering an Incremental ASP Solver. In: Garcia de la Banda, M., Pontelli, E. (eds.) ICLP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5366, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R., Ostrowski, M., Schaub, T., Schneider, M.T.: Potassco: The potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Communications 24(2), 107–124 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Gelfond, M., Inclezan, D.: Yet another modular action language. In: Proc. of SEA, pp. 64–78 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing actions in extended logic programming. In: Proc. of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 559–573 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17(2/3&4), 301–321 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 193–210 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Giunchiglia, E., Kartha, G.N., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence 95(2), 409–438 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1–2), 49–104 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: Dependent fluents. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 1964–1969 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In: Proc. of AAAI/IAAI, pp. 623–630 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gravot, F., Cambon, S., Alami, R.: aSyMov:A Planner That Deals with Intricate Symbolic and Geometric Problems. In: Robotics Research the Eleventh International Symposium. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics, vol. 15, pp. 100–110. Springer (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Haspalamutgil, K.: Multi-Robot Systems in Cognitive Factories: Representation, Reasoning, Execution and Monitoring. Master’s thesis, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hauser, K., Latombe, J.C.: Integrating task and PRM motion planning: Dealing with many infeasible motion planning queries. In: Workshop on Bridging the Gap between Task and Motion Planning at ICAPS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hoffmann, J., Nebel, B.: The ff planning system: Fast plan generation through heuristic search. J. Artif. Intell. Res (JAIR) 14, 253–302 (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Hopton, L., Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: AQL: A Query Language for Action Domains Modelled Using Answer Set Programming. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 437–443. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaelbling, L.P., Lozano-Perez, T.: Hierarchical planning in the now. In: Proc. of ICRA Workshop on Mobile Manipulation (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kartha, G.N., Lifschitz, V.: Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report). In: Proc. of KR, pp. 341–350 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gen. Comput. 4(1), 67–95 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Latombe, J.C.: Robot Motion Planning. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1991)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Levesque, H., Lakemeyer, G.: Cognitive robotics. In: Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Levesque, H.J., Pirri, F., Reiter, R.: Foundations for the situation calculus. ETAI 2, 159–178 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lifschitz, V.: Two components of an action language. Annals of Mathematics in Artificial Intelligence 21(2–4), 305–320 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Lifschitz, V.: Action languages, answer sets and planning. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 357–373. Springer (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lifschitz, V.: What is answer set programming? In: Proc. of. AAAI, pp. 1594–1597 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lifschitz, V., Ren, W.: A modular action description language. In: Proc. of AAAI (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Representing Transition Systems by Logic Programs. In: Gelfond, M., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G. (eds.) LPNMR 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1730, pp. 92–106. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  55. Liu, H., Singh, P.: ConceptNet: A practical commonsense reasoning toolkit. BT Technology Journal 22 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Marek, V., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  57. McCain, N.: Causality in Commonsense Reasoning about Actions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  58. McCain, N., Turner, H.: A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In: Proc. of IJCAI, pp. 1978–1984 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  59. McCain, N., Turner, H.: Causal theories of action and change. In: Proc. of AAAI/IAAI, pp. 460–465 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  60. McCarthy, J.: Situations, actions, and causal laws. Tech. rep., Stanford University (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Miller, R., Shanahan, M.: The event calculus in classical logic - alternative axiomatisations. ETAI 3(A), 77–105 (1999)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 241–273 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  63. Plaku, E., Hager, G.D.: Sampling-based motion and symbolic action planning with geometric and differential constraints. In: Proc. of ICRA, pp. 5002–5008 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sandewall, E.: Features and Fluents: A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sandewall, E.: Cognitive robotics logic and its metatheory: Features and fluents revisited. ETAI 2, 307–329 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  66. Son, T.C., Baral, C.: Formalizing sensing actions a transition function based approach. Artificial Intelligence 125(1–2), 19–91 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Thielscher, M.: Introduction to the fluent calculus. ETAI 2, 179–192 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  68. Tran, N., Baral, C.: Reasoning about non-immediate triggers in biological networks. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 51(2–4), 267–293 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  69. Tran, N., Baral, C.: Hypothesizing about signaling networks. J. Applied Logic 7(3), 253–274 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Tran, N., Baral, C., Nagaraj, V.J., Joshi, L.: Knowledge-Based Integrative Framework for Hypothesis Formation in Biochemical Networks. In: Ludäscher, B., Raschid, L. (eds.) DILS 2005. LNCS (LNBI), vol. 3615, pp. 121–136. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  71. Tran, N., Baral, C., Shankland, C.: Issues in reasoning about interaction networks in cells: Necessity of event ordering knowledge. In: Proc. of AAAI, pp. 676–681 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Turner, H.: Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: A situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1–3), 245–298 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  73. Uras, T.: Applications of AI Planning in Genome Rearrangement and in Multi-Robot Systems. Master’s thesis, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wolfe, J., Marthi, B., Russell, S.: Combined task and motion planning for mobile manipulation. In: International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Zaeh, M., Beetz, M., Shea, K., Reinhart, G., Bender, K., Lau, C., Ostgathe, M., Vogl, W., Wiesbeck, M., Engelhard, M., Ertelt, C., Rühr, T., Friedrich, M., Herle, S.: The cognitive factory. In: Changeable and Reconf. Manufacturing Systems, pp. 355–371 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabancı University, Orhanlı, Tuzla, İstanbul, 34956, Turkey

    Esra Erdem & Volkan Patoglu

Authors
  1. Esra Erdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Volkan Patoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering and Natural Science, Sabanci University, Orhanli, 34956, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey

    Esra Erdem

  2. School of Computing, Informatics and Decision Systems Engineering, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 878809, 85287, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Joohyung Lee

  3. Department of Computer Science, University of Kentucky, 329 Rose Street, 40506, Lexington, KY, USA

    Yuliya Lierler

  4. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Politechnical University of Madrid, Campus de Montegancedo, 28660, Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain

    David Pearce

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Erdem, E., Patoglu, V. (2012). Applications of Action Languages in Cognitive Robotics. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds) Correct Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7265. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30743-0_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30742-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30743-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation