Advertisement

Preferential Action Semantics (Preliminary Report)

  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
  • Patrick Doherty
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1760)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a new way of considering reasoning about action and change. Rather than placing a preferential structure onto the models of logical theories, we place such a structure directly on the semantics of the actions involved. In this way, we obtain a preferential semantics of actions by means of which we can not only deal with several of the traditional problems in this area such as the frame and ramification problems, but can generalize these solutions to a context which includes both nondeterministic and concurrent actions. In fact, the net result is an integration of semantical and verificational techniques from the paradigm of imperative and concurrent programs in particular, as known from traditional programming, with the AI perspective. In this paper, the main focus is on semantical (i.e. model theoretical) issues rather than providing a logical calculus, which would be the next step in the endeavor.

Keywords

Atomic Action Dynamic Logic Prefer Behavior Concurrent Action Action Scenario 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Crawford. Three issues in action. Unpublished note for the 5th Int. Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    E. W. Dijkstra and C. S. Scholten. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Doherty. Reasoning about action and change using occlusion. In Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Amsterdam, pages 401–405, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Dunin-Keplicz and A. Radzikowska. Epistemic approach to actions with typical effects. In Chr. Froideveaux and J. Kohlas, editors, Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty, Proc. ECSQARU’95, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 180–188. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Giunchiglia and V. Lifschitz. Dependent fluents. In Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, pages 1964–1969, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Gustafsson and P. Doherty. Embracing occlusion in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Proc. of the 5th Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (KR-96), 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D. M. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 2, pages 496–604. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz. Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report). In Proc. of the 4th Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (KR-94), pages 341–350, 1994.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Lin. Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Łukaszewicz and E. Madalinska-Bugaj. Reasoning about action and change: Actions with abnormal effects. In I. Wachsmuth, C.-R Rollinger, and W. Brauer, editors, Proc. KI-95: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, volume 981 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 209–220. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Łukaszewicz and E. Madalinska-Bugaj. Reasoning about action and change using Dijkstra’s semantics for programming languages: Preliminary report. In Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, pages 1950–1955, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Sandewall. Features and fluents. Technical Report LITH-IDA-R-91-29, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Sandewall. Features and Fluents: A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Sandewall. Systematic comparison of approaches to ramification using restricted minimization of change. Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-95-15, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, May 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. Sandewall and Y. Shoham. Nonmonotonic temporal reasoning. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Epistemic and Temporal Reasoning, volume 4 of Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Thielscher. Computing ramifications by postprocessing. In Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, pages 1994–2000, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  • Patrick Doherty
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems Group, Dept. of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer and Information ScienceUniversity of LinköpingLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations