A Non-monotonic Goal Specification Language for Planning with Preferences

  • Tran Cao Son
  • Enrico Pontelli
  • Chitta Baral
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9060)


This paper introduces a default logic based approach to defining goal specification languages that can be non-monotonic and allow for the specification of inconsistencies and priorities among goals. The paper starts by presenting a basic goal specification language for planning with preferences. It then defines goal default theories (resp. with priorities) by embedding goal formulae into default logic (resp. prioritizing default logic). It is possible to show that the new language is general, as it can express several features of previously developed goal specification languages. The paper discusses how several other features can be subsumed by extending the basic goal specification language. Finally, we identify features that might be important in goal specification that cannot be expressed by our language.


Transition System Planning Problem Linear Temporal Logic Basic Goal Default Theory 
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.
    Baier, J.A., Bacchus, F., McIlraith, S.A.: A heuristic search approach to planning with temporally extended preferences. Artif. Intell. 173(5-6), 593–618 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C., Zhao, J.: Goal specification in presence of non-deterministic actions. In: de Mántaras, R.L., Saitta, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th Eureopean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 2004, including Prestigious Applicants of Intelligent Systems, PAIS 2004, Valencia, Spain, August 22-27, pp. 273–277. IOS Press (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C., Zhao, J.: Goal specification, non-determinism and quantifying over policies. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Eighteenth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, July 16-20, AAAI Press, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral, C., Zhao, J.: Non-monotonic temporal logics for goal specification. In: Veloso, M.M. (ed.) IJCAI 2007, Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, January 6-12, pp. 236–242 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C., Zhao, J.: Non-monotonic temporal logics that facilitate elaboration tolerant revision of goals. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, Illinois, July 13-17, pp. 406–411. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bienvenu, M., Fritz, C., McIlraith, S.: Planning with qualitative temporal preferences. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2006), Lake District, UK, pp. 134–144 (June 2006), 200603101347_KR06BienvenuM.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Prioritizing default logic. In: Intellectics and Computational Logic. Applied Logic Series, vol. 19, pp. 27–45. Kluwer (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delgrande, J., Schaub, T.: Expressing preferences in default logic. Artificial Intelligence 123, 41–87 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fox, M., Long, D.: PDDL2.1: An Extension to PDDL for Expressing Temporal Planning Domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 20, 61–124 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 46–57 (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reiter, R.: A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13(1,2), 81–132 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E.: Planning with Preferences using Logic Programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6, 559–607 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tran Cao Son
    • 1
  • Enrico Pontelli
    • 1
  • Chitta Baral
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNew Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations