Computing MPMA updates using Dijkstra’s semantics

  • Patrick Doherty
  • Witold Lukaszewicz
  • Ewa Madalińska-Bugaj
Communications 3B Logics for AI
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1609)


We describe a generalization of the PMA, called the modified PMA (MPMA), which permits an intuitive representation of disjunctive update and update with integrity constraints. An equivalent formulation of the MPMA in terms of Dijkstra’s semantics, based on the use of the weakest precondition and the strongest postcondition formula transformers, is then provided. The Dijkstra formulation is then used as a basis for a syntactic characterization of the MPMA, which is constructed by mapping an MPMA update of a knowledge base into a command in a simple Dijkstra style programming language. This characterization provides a decision procedure for computing entailments of the MPMA and serves as a basis for relating the belief update approach with temporal logic based and more procedurally based approaches for reasoning about action and change.


Knowledge Base Temporal Logic Integrity Constraint Conjunctive Normal Form Formula Transformer 
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]
    M. Bjäreland, L. Karlsson. Reasoning by Regression Pre-and Postcondition Operators for Logics of Action and Change. Proc. IJCAI’97, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Brewka, J. Hetrzberg. How to Do Things with Worlds: on Formalizing Actions and Plans. Journal of Logic and Computation. Vol. 3, No. 5, 517–532, 1993.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    F. M. Brown. Boolean Reasoning. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    E. W. Dijkstra. A Discipline of Programming. Prentice Hall, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. W. Dijkstra, C. S. Scholten. Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics. Springer-Verlag, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Doherty, W. Lukaszewicz, E. Madalińska-Bugaj. The PMA and Relativizing Minimal Change for Action Update. Proceedings of KR-98, 258–169, 1998Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    A. Hertzig. The PMA Revisited. Proceedings of KR’96, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc. San Francisco, California, 40–50, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Lin. Embracing Causality in Specifying the Indirect Effects of Actions. Proceedings of IJCAI’95, 1985–1991, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    F. Lin. Embracing Causality in Specificying the Indeterminate Effects of Actions. Proc. AAAI’96, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    E. Madalińska-Bugaj. How to Solve Qualification and Ramification Using Dijkstra’s Semantics for Programming Language. AI*IA-97: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 1321, 381–392, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Winslett. Reasoning about Action Using a Possible Model Approach. In: Proceedings AAAI-88, St. Paul, MN, 89–93, 1988.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Winslett. Updating Logical Databases. Cambridge Tracks in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Winslett, Updating Logical Databases. In: D. Gabbay, A. Galton, J. A. Robinson (eds.). Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Vol. 4 (Epistemic and Temporal Reasoning), Oxford University Press, 133–174, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Doherty
    • 1
  • Witold Lukaszewicz
    • 2
  • Ewa Madalińska-Bugaj
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  2. 2.Institute of InformaticsWarsaw UniversityWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations