Advertisement

A Production Rule-Based Framework for Causal and Epistemic Reasoning

  • Theodore Patkos
  • Abdelghani Chibani
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
  • Yacine Amirat
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7438)

Abstract

Action theories are an important field of knowledge representation for reasoning about change and causality in dynamic domains. In practical implementations agents often have incomplete knowledge about the environment and need to acquire information at runtime through sensing, the basic ontology of action theories needs to be extended with epistemic notions. This paper presents a production system that can perform online causal, temporal and epistemic reasoning based on the Event Calculus and on an epistemic extension of the latter. The framework implements the declarative semantics of the underlying logic theories in a forward-chaining rule-based system. This way, it combines the capacity of highly expressive formalisms to represent a multitude of commonsense phenomena with the efficiency of rule-based reasoning systems, which typically lack real semantics and high-level structures.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Frame Problem Ambient Assist Live Epistemic Reasoning Partial Observability 
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.
    Levesque, H., Reiter, R.: High-level Robotic Control: Beyond Planning. A Position Paper. In: AIII 1998 Spring Symposium: Integrating Robotics Research: Taking the Next Big Leap (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B.: Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier Science, San Diego (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scherl, R.B., Levesque, H.J.: Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144(1-2), 1–39 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thielscher, M.: Representing the Knowledge of a Robot. In: KR 2000: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 109–120 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lobo, J., Mendez, G., Taylor, S.R.: Knowledge and the action description language A. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 1(2), 129–184 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patkos, T., Plexousakis, D.: Reasoning with Knowledge, Action and Time in Dynamic and Uncertain Domains. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, IJCAI 2009, pp. 885–890 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: A logic-based, reactive calculus of events. Fundamenta Informaticae 105, 135–161 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A Logic-based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mueller, E.: Commonsense Reasoning, 1st edn. Morgan Kaufmann (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patkos, T., Plexousakis, D.: Efficient epistemic reasoning in partially observable dynamic domains using hidden causal dependencies. In: NRAC 2011 - 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Action and Change, pp. 55–62 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chittaro, L., Montanari, A.: Efficient Temporal Reasoning in the Cached Event Calculus. Computational Intelligence 12, 359–382 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A.C., Michael, L.: Reasoning About Actions and Change in Answer Set Programming. In: Lifschitz, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) LPNMR 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2923, pp. 61–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riboni, D., Bettini, C.: Owl 2 modeling and reasoning with complex human activities. Pervasive and Mobile Computing 7, 379–395 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, L., Nugent, C., Mulvenna, M., Finlay, D., Hong, X., Poland, M.: A Logical Framework for Behaviour Reasoning and Assistance in a Smart Home. International Journal of Assistive Robotics and Mechatronics 9 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sadri, F.: Intention recognition with event calculus graphs. In: Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 386–391 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kunze, L., Dolha, M.E., Beetz, M.: Logic programming with simulation-based temporal projection for everyday robot object manipulation. In: IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2011), pp. 3172–3178 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patkos, T., Plexousakis, D.: Epistemic reasoning for ambient intelligence. In: 3rd International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART), pp. 242–248 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kowalski, R., Sadri, F.: An Agent Language with Destructive Assignment and Model-Theoretic Semantics. In: Dix, J., Leite, J., Governatori, G., Jamroga, W. (eds.) CLIMA XI. LNCS, vol. 6245, pp. 200–218. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shanahan, M.: The ramification problem in the event calculus. In: 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 140–146 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore Patkos
    • 1
  • Abdelghani Chibani
    • 1
  • Dimitris Plexousakis
    • 2
  • Yacine Amirat
    • 1
  1. 1.Lissi LaboratoryUniversity of Paris-Est CreteilFrance
  2. 2.Institute of Computer ScienceFO.R.T.H.Greece

Personalised recommendations