Approximate Epistemic Planning with Postdiction as Answer-Set Programming

  • Manfred Eppe
  • Mehul Bhatt
  • Frank Dylla
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8148)


We propose a history-based approximation of the Possible Worlds Semantics (\(\mathcal{PWS}\)) for reasoning about knowledge and action. A respective planning system is implemented by a transformation of the problem domain to an Answer-Set Program. The novelty of our approach is elaboration tolerant support for postdiction under the condition that the plan existence problem is still solvable in NP, as compared to \(\Sigma_2^P\) for non-approximated \(\mathcal{PWS}\) of [20]. We demonstrate our planner with standard problems and present its integration in a cognitive robotics framework for high-level control in a smart home.


Logic Program Belief State Smart Home Knowledge Proposition Situation Calculus 
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.
    Bäckström, C., Nebel, B.: Complexity results for SAS+ planning. Computational Intelligence 11, 625–655 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C., Kreinovich, V., Trejo, R.: Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in the presence of incompleteness. Artificial Intelligence 122 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cimatti, A., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Traverso, P.: Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking. Artificial Intelligence 147, 35–84 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eppe, M., Bhatt, M.: Narrative based Postdictive Reasoning for Cognitive Robotics. In: 11th Int’l Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eppe, M., Bhatt, M., Dylla, F.: h-approximation: History-Based Approximation to Possible World Semantics as ASP. Technical report, arXiv:1304.4925v1 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., Schaub, T.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Morgan and Claypool (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action and change by logic programs. The Journal of Logic Programming 17, 301–321 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoffmann, J., Brafman, R.I.: Contingent planning via heuristic forward search with implicit belief states. In: ICAPS Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krieg-Brückner, B., Röfer, T., Shi, H., Gersdorf, B.: Mobility Assistance in the Bremen Ambient Assisted Living Lab. Journal of GeroPsyc 23, 121–130 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, J., Palla, R.: Reformulating the situation calculus and the event calculus in the general theory of stable models and in answer set programming. JAIR 43, 571–620 (2012)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu, Y., Levesque, H.J.: Tractable reasoning with incomplete first-order knowledge in dynamic systems with context-dependent actions. In: IJCAI Proceedings (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lobo, J., Mendez, G., Taylor, S.: Knowledge and the Action Description Language A. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1, 129–184 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCarthy, J.: Elaboration tolerance. In: Commonsense Reasoning (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller, R., Morgenstern, L., Patkos, T.: Reasoning About Knowledge and Action in an Epistemic Event Calculus. In: 11th Int’l Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore, R.: A formal theory of knowledge and action. In: Hobbs, J., Moore, R. (eds.) Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 319–358 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patkos, T., Plexousakis, D.: Reasoning with Knowledge, Action and Time in Dynamic and Uncertain Domains. In: IJCAI Proceedings, pp. 885–890 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petrick, R., Bacchus, F.: Extending the knowledge-based approach to planning with incomplete information and sensing. In: ICAPS Proceedings (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pettersson, O.: Execution monitoring in robotics: A survey. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 53, 73–88 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scherl, R.B., Levesque, H.J.: Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144, 1–39 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Son, T.C., Baral, C.: Formalizing sensing actions - A transition function based approach. Artificial Intelligence 125, 19–91 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thielscher, M.: Representing the knowledge of a robot. In: Proc. of KR (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    To, S.T.: On the impact of belief state representation in planning under uncertainty. In: IJCAI Proceedings (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tu, P.H., Son, T.C., Baral, C.: Reasoning and planning with sensing actions, incomplete information, and static causal laws using answer set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 7, 377–450 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vlaeminck, H., Vennekens, J., Denecker, M.: A general representation and approximate inference algorithm for sensing actions. In: Australasian Conference on AI (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Eppe
    • 1
  • Mehul Bhatt
    • 1
  • Frank Dylla
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations