Advertisement

Getting to the Airport: The Oldest Planning Problem in AI

  • Vladimir Lifschitz
  • Norman McCain
  • Emilio Remolina
  • Armando Tacchella
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)

Abstract

The problem discussed in this paper is described in a 1959 paper by John McCarthy as follows: Assume that I am seated at my desk at home and I wish to go to the airport. My car is at my home also. The solution of the problem is to walk to the car and drive the car to the airport. In the spirit of what is now known as the logic approach to AI, McCarthy proposed to address this problem by first giving “a formal statement of the premises” that a reasoning program would use to draw the relevant conclusions. Our goal here is to take a careful look at this episode from the early history of AI and to identify some of the logical and algorithmic ideas related to the airport problem that have emerged over the years.

Keywords

Action languages C language causation Causal Calculator deduction frame problem nonmonotonic reasoning planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Clark, K. (1978). Negation as failure. In Gallaire, H. and Minker, J., editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 293–322. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, pages 81–120. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., and Koehler, J. (1997). Encoding planning problems in non-monotonic logic programs. In Steel, S. and Alami, R., editors, Proc. European Conf on Planning 1997, pages 169–181. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4): 189–208.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Geffner, H. (1990). Causal theories for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proc. AAAI-90, pages 524–530. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1991). Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1993). Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–322.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1998). Action languages. http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1998/016 Electronic Transactions on AI, 3, pages 195–210.Google Scholar
  9. Giunchiglia, E. and Lifschitz, V. (1998). An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI-98, pages 623–630. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. Green, C. (1969). Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Walker, D. and Norton, L., editors, Proc. IJCAI, pages 219–240. The MITRE Corporation.Google Scholar
  11. Hanks, S. and McDermott, D. (1987). Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33(3):379–412.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kautz, H. and Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. ECAI-92, pages 359–363.Google Scholar
  13. Kautz, H. and Selman, B. (2000). Encoding domain and control knowledge for propositional planning. In Minker, J., editor, Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, pages 169–186, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts 02061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lifschitz, V. (2000). Missionaries and cannibals in the causal calculator. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. Seventh Int’l Conf., pages 85–96.Google Scholar
  15. Lifschitz, V. (1997). On the logic of causal explanation. Artificial Intelligence, 96:451–465.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lifschitz, V. (1999a). Answer set planning. In Proc. ICLP-99, pages 23–37.Google Scholar
  17. Lifschitz, V. (1999b). Success of default logic. In Levesque, H. and Pirri, F., editors, Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents: Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter, pages 208–212. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Lin, F. and Reiter, R. (1994). State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4:655–678.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCain, N. and Turner, H. (1997). Causal theories of action and change. In Proc. AAAI-97, pages 460–465.Google Scholar
  20. McCain, N. and Turner, H. (1998). Satisfiability planning with causal theories. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proc. Sixth Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 212–223.Google Scholar
  21. McCarthy, J. (1959). Programs with common sense. In Proc. Teddington Conf. on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, pages 75–91, London. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Reproduced in McCarthy, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. McCarthy, J. (1986). Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 26(3):89–116. Reproduced in McCarthy, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.Google Scholar
  24. McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Meitzer, B. and Michie, D., editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Reproduced in McCarthy, 1990.Google Scholar
  25. Pednault, E. (1987). Formulating multi-agent, dynamic world problems in the classical planning framework. In Georgeff, M. and Lansky, A., editors, Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 47–82. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pednault, E. (1994). ADL and the state-transition model of action. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4:467–512.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schubert, L. (1990). Monotonie solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: an efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In Kyburg, H., Loui, R., and Carlson, G., editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer.Google Scholar
  29. Selman, B., Kautz, H., and McAllester, D. (1997). Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In Proc. IJCAI-97, pages 50–54.Google Scholar
  30. Shanahan, M. (1997). Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Subrahmanian, V. and Zaniolo, C. (1995). Relating stable models and AI planning domains. In Proc. ICLP-95, pages 233–247.Google Scholar
  32. Turner, H. (1997). Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: a situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming, 31:245–298.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang, H. (1997). An efficient propositional prover. In Proc. CADE-97, pages 272–275.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vladimir Lifschitz
    • 1
  • Norman McCain
    • 2
  • Emilio Remolina
    • 3
  • Armando Tacchella
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Baker UniversityUSA
  3. 3.University of Texas at AustinUSA
  4. 4.Universitá di GenovaItaly

Personalised recommendations