Refining action theories through abductive logic programming

  • Renwei Li
  • Luis Moniz Pereira
  • Veronica Dahl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1471)


Reasoning about actions and changes often starts with an action theory which is then used for planning, prediction or explanation. In practice it is sometimes not simple to give an immediately available action theory. In this paper we will present an abductive methodology for describing action domains. We start with an action theory which is not complete, i.e., has more than one model. Then, after some tests are done, we can abduce a complete action theory. Technically, we use a high level action language to describe incomplete domains and tests. Then, we present a translation from domain descriptions to abductive logic programs. Using tests, we then abductively refine an original domain description to a new one which is closer to the domain in reality. The translation has been shown to be both sound and complete. The result of this paper can be used not only for refinement of domain descriptions but also for abductive planning, prediction and explanation. The methodology presented in this paper has been implemented by an abductive logic programming system.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    K. R. Apt and M. Bezem. Acyclic programs. In Proc. of ICLP 90, pages 579–597. MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. B. Baker. Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 49:5–23, 1991.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Console, D. T. Dupre, and P. Torasso. On the relationship between abduction and deduction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1(5):661–690, 1991.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. V. Damásio, L.M. Pereira, and W. Nejdle. Revise: An extended logic programming system for revising knowledge bases. In Proc. of KR'94, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Denecker. Knowledge representation and reasoning in incomplete logic programming. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, K.U.Leuven, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Denecker, and D. Schreye. Representing incomplete knowledge in abductive logic programming. In Proc. of ILPS'93, 1993, pp. 147–163Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–322, 1993.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A.C. Kakas and P. Mancarella. Generalized stable models: A semantics for abduction. In Proc. of ECAI'90, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.N. Kartha. Soundness and completeness theorems for three formalizations of action. In Proc. IJCAI93, pages 712–718. MIT Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.A. Kowalski and F. Sadri. The situation calculus and event calculus compared. In Proc. of ILPS 94, pages 539–553. MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Li and L.M. Pereira. Temporal reasoning with abductive logic programming. In W. Wahsler, editor, Proc. of ECAI'96, pages 13–17. John Wiley & Sons, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ft. Li and L.M. Pereira. What is believed is what is explained (sometimes). In Proc. of AAAI'96, pages 550–555, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Li and L.M. Pereira. Knowledge-based situated agents among us. In J. P. Muller, M. J. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents III — Proc. of the Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-96), LNAI 1193, pages 375–389. Springer, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Lin and Y. Shoham. Provably correct theories of actions: preliminary report. In Proc. of AAAI-91, 1991.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. McCarthy and P.J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the stand-point of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 4, pages 463–502, Edinburgh, 1969.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. P. D. Pednault. Adl: Exploring the middle ground between strips and the situation calculus. In R. J. Brachman, H. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proc. of KR'89, pages 324–332. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc., 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. M. Pereira, J. J. Alferes, and J. N. Aparício. Nonmonotonic reasoning with well founded semantics. In K. Furukawa, editor, Proc. of 8th ICLP, pages 475–489. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359–380. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Sandewall. Features and Fluents: The Representation of Knowledge about Dynamic Systems, Vol. 1. Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renwei Li
    • 1
  • Luis Moniz Pereira
    • 1
  • Veronica Dahl
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENTRIA) Department of Computer ScienceUniversidade Nova de LisboaMonte de CaparicaPortugal
  2. 2.School of Computing ScienceSimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations