Simulation of Action Theories and an Application to General Game-Playing Robots

  • Michael Thielscher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9060)


We consider the problem of verifying whether one action theory can simulate a second one. Action theories provide modular descriptions of state machines, and simulation means that all possible sequences of actions in one transition system can be matched by the other. We show how Answer Set Programming can be used to automatically prove simulation by induction from an axiomatisation of two action theories and a projection function between them. Our interest in simulation of action theories comes from general game-playing robots as systems that can understand the rules of new games and learn to play them effectively in a physical environment. A crucial property of such games is their playability, that is, each legal play sequence in the abstract game must be executable in the real environment.


Logic Program Action Theory General Game Situation Calculus Game Environment 
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.
    Apt, K., Blair, H., Walker, A.: Towards a theory of declarative knowledge. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming, ch. 2, pp. 89–148. Morgan Kaufmann (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Babb, J., Lee, J.: cplus2ASP: Computing action language \({\cal C}\)+ in answer set programming. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148, pp. 122–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Benthem, J.: Logic in Games. MIT Press (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T., Truszczynski, M.: Answer set programming at a glance. Communications of the ACM 54(12), 92–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brewka, G., Hertzberg, J.: How to do things with worlds: on formalizing actions and plans. Journal of Logic and Computation 3(5), 517–532 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cerexhe, T., Gebser, M., Thielscher, M.: Online agent logic programming with oClingo. In: Pham, D.-N., Park, S.-B. (eds.) PRICAI 2014. LNCS, vol. 8862, pp. 945–957. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clune, J.: Heuristic evaluation functions for general game playing. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1134–1139. AAAI Press, Vancouver (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fikes, R., Nilsson, N.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2, 189–208 (1971)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finnsson, H., Björnsson, Y.: Simulation-based approach to general game playing. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 259–264. AAAI Press, Chicago (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Finnsson, H., Björnsson, Y.: Learning simulation control in general game-playing agents. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 954–959. AAAI Press, Atlanta (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Knecht, M., Schaub, T.: plasp: A prototype for PDDL-based planning in ASP. In: Delgrande, J.P., Faber, W. (eds.) LPNMR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6645, pp. 358–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelfond, M.: Answer sets. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, pp. 285–316. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17, 301–321 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Genesereth, M., Björnsson, Y.: The international general game playing competition. AI Magazine 34(2), 107–111 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genesereth, M., Love, N., Pell, B.: General game playing: Overview of the AAAI competition. AI Magazine 26(2), 62–72 (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Genesereth, M., Thielscher, M.: General Game Playing. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan & Claypool (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haufe, S., Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: Automated verification of state sequence invariants in general game playing. Artificial Intelligence, 187–188, 1–30 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hsu, F.H.: Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer that Defeated the World Chess Champion. Princeton University Press (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kowalski, R.: Database updates in the event calculus. Journal of Logic Programming 12, 121–146 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, J.: Reformulating the situation calculus and the event calculus in the general theory of stable models and in answer set programming. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 43, 571–620 (2012)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, N., Fan, Y., Liu, Y.: Reasoning about state constraints in the situation calculus. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Beijing, China (August 2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lloyd, J.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd extended edn. Series Symbolic Computation. Springer (1987)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lloyd, J., Topor, R.: A basis for deductive database systems II. Journal of Logic Programming 3(1), 55–67 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Love, N., Hinrichs, T., Haley, D., Schkufza, E., Genesereth, M.: General Game Playing: Game Description Language Specification. Tech. Rep. LG–2006–01, Stanford Logic Group, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, 353 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305 (2006),
  26. 26.
    McCarthy, J.: Situations and Actions and Causal Laws. Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project, Memo 2, Stanford University, CA (1963)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pritchard, D.: The Encycolpedia of Chess Variants. Godalming (1994)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rajaratnam, D., Thielscher, M.: Towards general game-playing robots: Models, architecture and game controller. In: Cranefield, S., Nayak, A. (eds.) AI 2013. LNCS, vol. 8272, pp. 271–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sandewall, E.: Features and Fluents. The Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press (1994)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sangiorgi, D.: Introduction to Bisumlation and Coinduction. Cambridge University Press (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: Fluxplayer: A successful general game player. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1191–1196. AAAI Press, Vancouver (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schiffel, S., Thielscher, M.: A multiagent semantics for the game description language. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A., Sharp, B. (eds.) ICAART 2009. CCIS, vol. 67, pp. 44–55. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thielscher, M.: From situation calculus to fluent calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 111(1-2), 277–299 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thielscher, M.: Answer set programming for single-player games in general game playing. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 327–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Thielscher
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringThe University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations