Planning with Effectively Propositional Logic

  • Juan Antonio Navarro-Pérez
  • Andrei Voronkov
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7797)


We present a fragment of predicate logic which allows the use of equality and quantification but whose models are limited to finite Herbrand interpretations. Formulae in this logic can be thought as syntactic sugar on top of the Bernays-Schönfinkel fragment and can, therefore, still be effectively grounded into a propositional representation. We motivate the study of this logic by showing that practical problems from the area of planning can be naturally and succinctly represented using the added syntactic features. Moreover, from a theoretical point of view, we show that this logic allows, when compared to the propositional approach, not only more compact encodings but also exponentially shorter refutation proofs.


Propositional Logic Planning Domain Predicate Logic Predicate Symbol Parallel Action 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baaz, M., Leitsch, A.: Complexity of resolution proofs and function introduction. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 57(3), 181–215 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bachmair, L., Ganzinger, H.: Resolution theorem proving. In: Robinson, J.A., Voronkov, A. (eds.) Handbook of Automated Reasoning, vol. I, ch. 2, pp. 19–99. Elsevier (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner, P., Tinelli, C.: The Model Evolution Calculus with Equality. In: Nieuwenhuis, R. (ed.) CADE 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3632, pp. 392–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Claessen, K., Sörensson, N.: New techniques that improve MACE-style model finding. In: MODEL 2003: Proceedings of the Workshop on Model Computation (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fikes, R., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2, 189–208 (1971)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ganzinger, H., Korovin, K.: Theory Instantiation. In: Hermann, M., Voronkov, A. (eds.) LPAR 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4246, pp. 497–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, C.: Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: IJCAI 1969: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 219–239 (1969)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haas, A.R.: The case for domain specific frame axioms. In: Brown, F.M. (ed.) Proceedings of the 1987 Workshop on The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 343–348. Morgan Kaufmann, Lawrence (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: ECAI 1992: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 359–363. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Vienna (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kautz, H., McAllester, D., Selman, B.: Encoding plans in propositional logic. In: KR 1996: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Boston, MA, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Navarro Pérez, J.A.: Encoding and Solving Problems in Effectively Propositional Logic. PhD thesis, The University of Manchester (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Navarro-Pérez, J.A., Voronkov, A.: Encodings of Bounded LTL Model Checking in Effectively Propositional Logic. In: Pfenning, F. (ed.) CADE 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4603, pp. 346–361. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    David, A.: Plaisted and Steven Greenbaum. A structure-preserving clause form translation. Journal of Symbolic Computation 2(3), 747–7171 (1986) ISSN: 0747-7171Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schubert, L.K.: Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In: Kyburg, H., Loui, R., Carlson, G. (eds.) Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pp. 23–67. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutcliffe, G.: The TPTP problem library and associated infrastructure: The FOF and CNF parts, v3.5.0. Journal of Automated Reasoning 43(4), 337–362 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutcliffe, G., Suttner, C.B.: The state of CASC. AI Communications 19(1), 35–48 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Antonio Navarro-Pérez
    • 1
  • Andrei Voronkov
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of ManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations