Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reasoning Agents in Dynamic Domains

  • Chapter
Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence

Part of the book series: The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science ((SECS,volume 597))

Abstract

The paper discusses an architecture for intelligent agents based on the use of A-Prolog — a language of logic programs under the answer set semantics. A-Prolog is used to represent the agent’s knowledge about the domain and to formulate the agent’s reasoning tasks. We outline how these tasks can be reduced to answering questions about properties of simple logic programs and demonstrate the methodology of constructing these programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Baral, C. (1995). Reasoning about Actions: Non-deterministic effects, Constraints and Qualification. In Mellish, C., editor, Proc. of IJCAI 95, pages 2017-2023. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baral, C. and Gelfond, M. (1994). Logic programming and knowledge representation. Journal of Logic Programming, 19, 20:73–148.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, C., Gelfond, M., and Provetti, A. (1995). Representing Actions I: Laws, Observations and Hypothesis. In Proc. of AAAI 95 Spring Symposium on Extending Theories of Action: Formal theory and practical applications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baral, C., Gelfond, M., and Provetti, A. (1997). Representing Actions: Laws, Observations and Hypothesis. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(1–3):201–243.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, C. and Son, T. (1998). Relating theories of actions and reactive control. Electronic transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4).

    Google Scholar 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Swift, T., and Warren, D. (1995). Efficient top-down computation of queries under the well-founded semantics. Journal of Logic Programming, 24(3):161–201.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cholewiński, P., Marek, W., and Truszczyński, M. (1996). Default reasoning system DeRes. In Aiello, L., Doyle, J., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proc. of KR 96, pages 518–528. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. (1978). Negation as failure. In Gallaire, H. and Minker, J., editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 293-322. Plenum Press, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cui, B., Swift, T., and Warren, D. (1999). A case study in using preference logic grammars for knowledge representation. In Gelfond, M., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G., editors, Proc. of LPNMR 99, pages 206–220. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dantsin, E., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., and Voronkov, A. (1997). Complexity and expressive power of logic programming. In Proc. of 12th annual IEEE conference on Computational Complexity, pages 82–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Giacomo, G., Lesperance, Y., and Levesque, H. (1997). Reasoning about concurrent execution, prioritized interrupts, and exogenous actions in the situation calculus. In IJCAI 97, pages 1221–1226. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGiacomo, G., Reiter, R., and Soutchanski, M. (1998). Execution monitoring of high-level robot programs. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proc. of KR 98, pages 453–464. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denecker, M. and De Schreye, D. (1998). SLDNFA: an abductive procedure for normal abductive logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 34(2):111–167.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Erdem, E., Lifschitz, V., and Wong, M. (2000). Wire routing and satisfiability planning. In Proc. CL-2000 (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  • Faber, W., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G. (1999). Pushing goal derivation in DLP computations. In Gelfond, M., Leone, N., and Pfeifer, G., editors, Proc. of LPNMR 99, pages 177–191. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1988). The stable model semantics for logic programming. In Kowalski, R. and Bowen, K., editors, Logic Programming: Proc. of the Fifth Int’l Conf. and Symp., pages 1070–1080. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1991). Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1992). Representing actions in extended logic programs. In Apt, K., editor, Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming., pages 559–573. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinchiglia, E. and Lifschitz, V. (1998). An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI-98, pages 623–630. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakas, A., Kowalski, R., and Toni, F. (1998). The role of abduction in logic programming. In Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., and Robinson, J., editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, volume 5, pages 235–324. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kautz, H. and Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. of EC AI-92, pages 359–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. (1995). Using metalogic to reconcile reactive with rational agents. In Apt, K. and Turini, F., editors, Meta-logics and logic programming, pages 227–242. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalski, R. and Sadri, F. (1999). From logic programming towards multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25:391–419.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lesperance, Y., Lin, F., and Scherl, R. (1997). GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(l–3):59–84.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lifschitz, V. (1996). Foundations of declarative logic programming. In Brewka, G., editor, Principles of Knowledge Representation, pages 69–128. CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifschitz, V. (1997). Two components of an action language. Annals of Math and AI, 21(2–4):305–320.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. (2000). From causal theories to successor state axioms and STRIPS like systems. In Proc. of AAAI 2000 (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, F. (95). Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Mellish, C., editor, Proc. of IJCAI 95, pages 1985–1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1989). Stable semantics for logic programs and default reasoning. In Lusk, E. and Overbeek, R., editors, Proc. of the North American Conf. on Logic Programming, pages 243–257. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1993). Nonmonotonic Logic: Context dependent reasoning. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marek, W. and Truszczyński, M. (1999). Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In Apt, K., Marek, V., Trucszczynski, M., and Warren, D., editors, The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year perspective, pages 375–398. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, N. and Turner, H. (95). A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In Mellish, C, editor, Proc. of IJCAI 95, pages 1978–1984. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, N. and Turner, H. (98). Satisfiability planning with causal theories. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proc. of KR 98, pages 212–223. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription—a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1, 2):27–39, 171–172.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Meltzer, B. and Michie, D., editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, R. (1985). Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 25(l):75–94.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Niemela, I. (1999). Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25(3–4):241–271.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Niemela, I. and Simons, P. (1997). Smodels — an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In Dix, J., Furbach, U., and Nerode, A., editors, Proc. 4th international conference on Logic programming and non-monotonic reasoning, pages 420–429. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto, J. (1999). Compiling Ramification Constraints into Effect Axioms. Computational Intelligence, 15(3):280–307.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1,2):81–132.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, R. (1995). On specifying database updates. Journal of Logic Programming, 25:25–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saccà, D. and Zaniolo, C. (1997). Deterministic and non-deterministic stable models. Journal of Logic and Computation, 7(5):555–579.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sandewall, E. (1998). Special issue. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4):159-330. http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/etai/.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, M. (1997). Solving the frame problem: A mathematical investigation of the commonsense law of inertia. MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soininen, T. and Niemela, I. (1999). Developing a declarative rule language for applications in product configuration. In Gupta, G., editor, Proc. of Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages’99, volume 1551, pages 305–319. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelder, A., Ross, K., and Schlipf, J. (1991). The well-founded semantics for general logic programs. Journal of ACM, 38(3):620–650.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H. and Zaniolo, C. (2000). Nonmonotonic Reasoning in LDL++. In Minker, J., editor, This volume. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. (1999a). Action languages and domain modeling. PhD thesis, University of Texas at EL Paso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. (1999b). An application of action theory to the space shuttle. In Gupta, G., editor, Proc. of Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages’99, volume 1551, pages 290–304. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Sc. and Engg., Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Chitta Baral

  2. Department of Computer Sc., Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    Michael Gelfond

Authors
  1. Chitta Baral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Gelfond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Advanced Computer Studies and Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, USA

    Jack Minker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baral, C., Gelfond, M. (2000). Reasoning Agents in Dynamic Domains. In: Minker, J. (eds) Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence. The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol 597. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1567-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1567-8_12

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5618-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-1567-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation