Circumscribing features and fluents: A fluent logic for reasoning about action and change
Sandewall has recently proposed a systematic approach to the representation of knowledge about dynamical systems that includes a general framework in which to assess the range of applicability of existing and new logics for action and change. As part of the framework, several logics of preferential entailment are introduced and assessed for particular classes of action scenario descriptions. The intent of this paper is to provide syntactic characterizations of several of these relations of preferential entailment in terms of circumscription with a standard base logic consisting of FOPC with temporal terms and discrete time. It turns out that occluded circumscription, which covers the broadest class of action scenarios, and includes many of the most problematic scenarios studied in the literature, is one of the most straightforward logics considered. The class includes scenarios with non-deterministic actions, actions with duration, partial specification of any state including the first, and incomplete specification of the timing and order of actions.
KeywordsAction Schema Reasoning Task Schedule Statement Frame Problem Action Symbol
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. Doherty. Reasoning about action and change using occlusion. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Aug. 8–12, Amsterdam, pages 401–405, 1994.Google Scholar
- 2.P. Doherty and W. Lukaszewicz. Circumscribing features and fluents. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Temporal Logic, 1994.Google Scholar
- 3.M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Representing actions in extended logic programming. In K. Apt, editor, Proc. Joint Int'l Conf. and Symp. on Logic Programming, pages 559–573, 1992.Google Scholar
- 4.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
- 5.V. Lifschitz. Toward a metatheory of action. In Proc. of the 2nd Int'l Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (KR-91), pages 376–386, 1991.Google Scholar
- 6.F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Provably correct theories of action (preliminary report). In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-91), pages 349–354, 1991.Google Scholar
- 7.R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
- 8.E. Sandewall. Filter preferential entailment for the logic of action and change. In Proc. Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-89), 1989.Google Scholar
- 9.E. Sandewall. The range of applicability of nonmonotonic logics for the inertia problem. In Proc. Int'l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, (IJCAI-93), 1993.Google Scholar
- 10.E. Sandewall. Features and fluents: A systematic approach to the representation of knowledge about dynamical systems. Technical report, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, 1994. Final Review Version.Google Scholar
- 11.L. Schubert. Monotonic solution of the frame problem in situation calculus. In H. E. Kyburg, R. P. Loui, and G. N. Carlson, editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer, 1990.Google Scholar