The frame problem and Bayesian network action representations

  • Craig Boutilier
  • Moisés Goldszmidt
Knowledge Representation II: Actions
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1081)


We examine a number of techniques for representing actions with stochastic effects using Bayesian networks and influence diagrams. We compare these techniques according to ease of specification and size of the representation required for the complete specification of the dynamics of a particular system, paying particular attention the role of persistence relationships. We precisely characterize two components of the frame problem for Bayes nets and stochastic actions, propose several ways to deal with these problems, and compare our solutions with Reiter's solution to the frame problem for the situation calculus. The result is a set of techniques that permit both ease of specification and compact representation of probabilistic system dynamics that is of comparable size (and timbre) to Reiter's representation (i.e., with no explicit frame axioms).


Bayesian Network Compact Representation Frame Problem Conditional Probability Table Influence Diagram 
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.
    Andrew B. Baker. Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 49:5–23, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craig Boutilier and Richard Dearden. Using abstractions for decision-theoretic planning with time constraints. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1016–1022, Seattle, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Craig Boutilier, Richard Dearden, and Moisés Goldszmidt. Exploiting structure in policy construction. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1104–1111, Montreal, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Craig Boutilier and Nir Friedman. Nondeterministic actions and the frame problem. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Extending Theories of Action: Formal Theory and Practical Applications, pages 39–44, Stanford, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig Boutilier, Nir Friedman, Moisés Goldszmidt, and Daphne Koller. Context-specific independence in bayesian networks. (manuscript), 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Craig Boutilier and Moisés Goldszmidt. A comparison of probabilistic and non-probabilistic action representations. (manuscript), 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thomas Dean and Keiji Kanazawa. A model for reasoning about persistence and causation. Computational Intelligence, 5(3):142–150, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas Dean and Michael Wellman. Planning and Control. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steve Hanks (ed.). Decision theoretic planning: Proceedings of the aaai spring symposium. Technical Report SS-94-06, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richard E. Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2:189–208, 1971.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dan Geiger and David Heckerman. Advances in probabilistic reasoning. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pages 118–126, Los Angeles, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. Representing actions in extended logic programming. In K. Apt, editor, Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Logic Programming, pages 559–573, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ronald A. Howard and James E. Matheson, editors. Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis. Strategic Decision Group, Menlo Park, CA, 1984.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Neelakantan Kartha. Two counterexamples related to Baker's approach to the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence, 69:379–392, 1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Neelakantan Kartha and Vladimir Lifschitz. Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 341–350, Bonn, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henry A. Kautz. The logic of persistence. In Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 401–405, Philadelphia, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Kowalski and M. Sergot. A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4(1):67–95, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nicholas Kushmerick, Steve Hanks, and Daniel Weld. An algorithm for probabilistic least-commitment planning. In Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1073–1078, Seattle, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fangzhen Lin and Ray Reiter. State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):655–678, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    John McCarthy and P.J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4:463–502, 1969.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Judea Pearl. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, 1988.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Edwin 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, pages 324–332, Toronto, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Javier A. Pinto. Temporal Reasoning in the Situation Calculus. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    David Poole. Probabilistic Horn abduction and Bayesian networks. Artificial Intelligence, 64(1):81–129, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raymond 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 (Papers in Honor of John McCarthy), pages 359–380. Academic Press, San Diego, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lenhart K. Schubert. Monotonie solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In H. E. Kyburg, R. P. Loui, and G. N. Carlson, editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer, Boston, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ross D. Shachter. Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research, 33(6):871–882, 1986.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoav Shoham. Reasoning About Change: Time and Causation from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig Boutilier
    • 1
  • Moisés Goldszmidt
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Rockwell Science CenterPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations