Explaining explanation closure

  • Patrick Doherty
  • Witold Łukaszewicz
  • Andzrej Szałas
Communications Session 6B Logic for Artificial Intelligence
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1079)

Abstract

Recently, Haas, Schubert, and Reiter, have developed an alternative approach to the frame problem which is based on the idea of using explanation closure axioms. The claim is that there is a monotonic solution for characterizing nonchange in serial worlds with fully specified actions, where one can have both a succinct representation of frame axioms and an effective proof theory for the characterization. In the paper, we propose a circumscriptive version of explanation closure, PMON, that has an effective proof theory and works for both context dependent and nondeterministic actions. The approach retains representational succinctness and a large degree of elaboration tolerance, since the process of generating closure axioms is fully automated and is of no concern to the knowledge engineer. In addition, we argue that the monotonic/nonmonotonic dichotomy proposed by others is not as sharp as previously claimed and is not fully justified.

Keywords

Prefix Haas Poss 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Doherty. Notes on PMON circumscription. Technical Report LITH-IDA-94-43, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden, December 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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
  3. 3.
    P. Doherty, W. Łukaszewicz, and A. Szałas. Computing circumscription revisited: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the 14th Int'l Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 2, pages 1502–1508, 1995. Extended version to appear in Journal of Automated Reasoning.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Doherty and P. Peppas. A comparison between two approaches to ramification: PMON(R) and AR 0. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Doherty and W. Łukaszewicz. Circumscribing features and fluents. In D. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach, editors, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Temporal Logic, volume 827 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 82–100. Springer, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. R. Haas. The case for domain-specific frame axioms. In F. M. Brown, editor, The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1987.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Hanks and D. McDermott. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. Lifschitz. Formal theories of action. In F. M. Brown, editor, The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. Lifschitz. Pointwise circumscription. In M. Ginsberg, editor, Readings in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, pages 179–193. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Lifschitz. Nested abnormality theories. Artificial Intelligence, 1995. To appear.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W. Łukaszewicz. Non-Monotonic Reasoning — Formalization of Commonsense Reasoning. Ellis Horwood Series in Artificial Intelligence. Ellis Horwood, 1990.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to formalizing common-sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 28:89–116, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    E. Sandewall. Features and Fluents: A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Doherty
    • 1
  • Witold Łukaszewicz
    • 2
  • Andzrej Szałas
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Institute of InformaticsWarsaw UniversityWarsaw 59Poland

Personalised recommendations