Advertisement

Representing defeasible constraints and observations in action theories

  • Yan Zhang
Scientific Track
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1502)

Abstract

We propose a general formulation of reasoning about action based on prioritized logic programming, where defeasibility handling is explicitly taken into account. In particular, we consider two types of defeasibilities in our problem domains: defeasible constraints and defeasible observations. By introducing the notion of priority in action formulation, we show that our approach provides a unified framework to handle these defeasibilities in temporal prediction and postdiction reasoning with incomplete information.

Key words

temporal reasoning commonsense reasoning knowledge representation reasoning about action 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Baral, Reasoning about actions: Non-deterministic effects, constraints, and qualification. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), pp2017–2023. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Baral and J. Lobo, Defeasible specifications in action theories. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’97). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Geffner, Causality, constraints and the indirect effects of actions. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’97), pp555–560. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365–386, 1991.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–322, 1993.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Jabłonowski, W. Łukaszewcz and E. Madalińsks-Bugaj, Reasoning about action and change: Defeasible observations and actions with abnormal effects. In Proceedings of KI-96. Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence, Vol 1137, pp136–147, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Lin, Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pp1985–1993. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc. 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Lukaszewcz and E. Madalińsks-Bugaj, Reasoning about action and change using Dijkstra’s semantics for programming language: Preliminary Report. In Proc-ceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’95), pp1950–1955. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Zhang and N.Y. Foo, Towards generalized rule-based updates. In Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’97), pp82–88. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Zhang and N.Y. Foo, Answer sets for prioritized logic programs. In Proceedings of the 1997 International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS’97), pp69–83. MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Zhang, Specifying causality in action theories: A default logic approach. Theoretical Computer Science, 1998 (to appear).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and Information TechnologyUniversity of Western SydneyKingswoodAustralia

Personalised recommendations