Reasoning about unknown, counterfactual, and nondeterministic actions in first-order logic

  • Charles Elkan
Knowledge Representation II: Actions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1081)


This paper extends previous work on axiomatizing actions and their effects in standard first-order logic. We show how to accommodate complex types of reasoning about action, including distinguishing between actual and hypothetical actions, drawing conclusions based on counterfactual assumptions, and reasoning about actions whose effects are nondeterministic. We also discuss in some detail the connections between the method proposed here and other methods based on nonmonotonic logics.


Logic Program Action Theory Frame Problem Situation Calculus Nonmonotonic Logic 
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. [Baker, 1989]
    Andrew B. Baker. A simple solution to the Yale shooting problem. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), pages 11–20, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. [Baker, 1991]
    Andrew B. Baker. Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 49:5–23, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [Clark, 1978]
    Kenneth L. Clark. Negation as failure. In Hervé Gallaire and Jack Minker, editors, Logic and Databases, pages 293–322. Plenum Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  4. [Denecker and De Schreye, 1993]
    Mark Denecker and Danny De Schreye. Representing incomplete knowledge in abductive logic programming. In Dale Miller, editor, Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 147–163, 1993.Google Scholar
  5. [Elkan, 1990]
    Charles Elkan. Incremental, approximate planning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 145–150, Boston, Massachusetts, August 1990.Google Scholar
  6. [Elkan, 1992a]
    Charles Elkan. The qualification problem, the frame problem, and nonmonotonic logic. Technical Report CS92-266, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California, San Diego, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. [Elkan, 1992b]
    Charles Elkan. Reasoning about action in first-order logic. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, pages 221–227, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, May 1992. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  8. [Hanks and McDermott, 1987]
    Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33(3):379–412, November 1987.Google Scholar
  9. [Kartha and Lifschitz, 1994]
    G. Neelakantan Kartha and Vladimir Lifschitz. Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), pages 341–350, Bonn, Germany, May 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [Kowalski and Sadri, 1994]
    Robert Kowalski and Fariba Sadri. The situation calculus and event calculus compared. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. [Kowalski and Sergot, 1986]
    Robert A. Kowalski and Marek Sergot. A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4(1):67–95, 1986.Google Scholar
  12. [Levesque, 1988]
    Hector J. Levesque. Logic and the complexity of reasoning. The Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17:355–389, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [Lifschitz et al., 1993]
    Vladimir Lifschitz, Norman McCain, and Hudson Turner. Automated reasoning about action: A logic programming approach. In Dale Miller, editor, Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, page 641, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. [Lifschitz, 1987]
    Vladimir Lifschitz. Formal theories of action. In Frank M. Brown, editor, Proceedings of the Workshop on the Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, pages 35–58, Lawrence, Kansas, 1987. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. [McCarthy and Hayes, 1969]
    John McCarthy and Patrick J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Machine Intelligence, volume 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. [McCarthy, 1980]
    John McCarthy. Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1,2):27–39, April 1980. Special Issue on Non-Monotonic Logic.Google Scholar
  17. [Pednault, 1989]
    Edwin P. D. Pednault. ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'89), pages 324–332. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
  18. [Pinto and Reiter, 1993]
    Javier Pinto and Raymond Reiter. Temporal reasoning in logic programming: a case for the situation calculus. In David S. Warren, editor, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Logic Programming, pages 203–221. MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. [Przymusiński, 1989]
    Teodor C. Przymusiński. On the declarative and procedural semantics of logic programs. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 5(2):167–206, June 1989.Google Scholar
  20. [Reiter, 1991]
    Raymond Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. [Schubert, 1989]
    Lenhart K. Schubert. Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989.Google Scholar
  22. [Shanahan, 1995]
    Murray Shanahan. A circumscriptive calculus of events. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2): 249–284, September 1995.Google Scholar
  23. [Stein and Morgenstern, 1994]
    Lynn A. Stein and Leora Morgenstern. Motivated action theory: A formal theory of causal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 71(1): 1–42, November 1994.Google Scholar
  24. [van Dalen, 1983]
    Dirk van Dalen. Logic and Structure. Springer Verlag, second edition, 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles Elkan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of California, San DiegoLa Jolla

Personalised recommendations