Advertisement

A New Incarnation of Action Language H

  • Sandeep Chintabathina
  • Richard Watson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7265)

Abstract

In this paper we present a new version of action language H which is more expressive and powerful than its previous version. We enhanced the syntax to include triggers which allows us to reason about natural actions. The new version is capable of modeling a variety of domains, demonstrating that it is a good language for knowledge representation. We present the syntax and semantics of the language and show how it can be used to model the behavior of a bouncing ball.

Keywords

Logic Program State Constraint Transition Diagram Constraint Solver Action Language 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balduccini, M.: Representing constraint satisfaction problems in answer set programming. In: ICLP 2009 Workshop on Answer Set Programming and Other Computing Paradigms (ASPOCP 2009) (July 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Reasoning agents in dynamic domains. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, pp. 257–279. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C., Son, T., Tuan, L.: A transition function based characterization of actions with delayed and continuous effects. In: Proc. of KR 2002, pp. 291–302 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chintabathina, S., Gelfond, M., Watson, R.: Modeling hybrid domains using process description language. In: Proc. of ASP 2005, pp. 303–317 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chintabathina, S.: Towards Answer Set Progamming Based Architectures for Intelligent Agents. PhD Dissertation. Texas Tech University (December 2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Kowalski, R., Bowen, K. (eds.) Proc. of ICLP 1988, pp. 1070–1080. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9(3/4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17, 301–321 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3(16) (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCain, N., Turner, H.: A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In: Mellish, C. (ed.) Proc. of IJCAI 1995, pp. 1978–1984. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463–502 (1969)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mellarkod, V.: Integrating ASP and CLP Systems: Computing Answer Sets from Partially Ground Programs. Texas Tech University (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mellarkod, V., Gelfond, M., Zhang, Y.: Integrating Answer Set Programming and Constraint Logic Programming. In: Proc. of ISAIM 2008 (2008), http://isaim2008.unl.edu/index.php
  14. 14.
    Mellarkod, V.: Optimizing The Computation Of Stable Models Using Merged Rules. Masters Thesis. Texas Tech University (May 2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ricardo Morales, A.: Improving Efficiency of Solving Computational Problems with ASP. PhD Dissertation. Texas Tech University (December 2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shanahan, M.: Solving the frame problem. MIT Press (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shanahan, M.: The event calculus explained. In: Artificial Intelligence Today, pp. 409–430 (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner, H.: Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: A situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 245–298 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandeep Chintabathina
    • 1
  • Richard Watson
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Arkansas at Pine BluffPine BluffUSA
  2. 2.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations