Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solving Planning Problems by Partial Deduction

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning (LPAR 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence ((LNAI,volume 1955))

Abstract

We develop an abstract partial deduction method capable of solving planning problems in the Fluent Calculus. To this end, we extend “classical” partial deduction to accommodate both, equational theories and regular type information. We show that our new method is actually complete for conjunctive planning problems in the propositional Fluent Calculus. Furthermore, we believe that our approach can also be used for more complex systems, e.g., in cases where completeness can not be guaranteed due to general undecidability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. Alpuente, M. Falaschi, and G. Vidal. Partial evaluation of functional logic programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 20(4):768–844, 1998. 453, 453, 457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Bruynooghe, H. Vandecasteele, D. A. de Waal, and M. Denecker. Detecting unsolvable queries for definite logic programs. In C. Palamidessi, H. Glaser, and K. Meinke, editors, Proceedings of ALP/PLILP’98, LNCS 1490, pages 118–133. Springer, 1998. 452

    Google Scholar 

  3. D. Chapman. Planning for conjunctive goals. AIJ, 32(3):333–377, 1985. 452

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. D. De Schreye, R. Glück, J. Jørgensen, M. Leuschel, B. Martens, and M. H. Sørensen. Conjunctive partial deduction: Foundations, control, algorithms and experiments. J. Logic Program., 41(2 & 3):231–277, 1999. 456, 457

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. P. Gallagher and D. A. de Waal. Fast and precise regular approximations of logic programs. In P. Van Hentenryck, editor, Proceedings of ICLP’94, pages 599–613. The MIT Press, 1994. 457

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. P. Gallagher and J. C. Peralta. Using regular approximations for generalisation durign partial evaluation. In Proceedings of PEPM’00, pages 44–51. ACM Press. 464

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. H. Gallier and S. Raatz. Extending SLD resolution to equational horn clauses using E-unification. J. Logic Program., 6(1–2):3–43, 1989. 454, 455

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. M. Hanus. The integration of functions into logic programming. J. Logic Program., 19 & 20:583–628, May 1994. 453, 454

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Hölldobler. Foundations of Equational Logic Programming, LNAI 353. Springer, 1989. 454, 455

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Hölldobler and J. Schneeberger. A new deductive approach to planning. New Gen. Comput., 8:225–244, 1990. 451, 453, 453, 454, 455

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. S. Hölldobler and M. Thielscher. Computing change and specificity with equational logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 14:99–133, 1995. 451

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. R. M. Karp and R. E. Miller. Parallel program schemata. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 3:147–195, 1969. 452, 456, 463, 466

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. H. Lehmann and M. Leuschel. Decidability results for the propositional fluent calculus. In J. Lloyd et al., editor, Proceedings of CL’2000, LNAI 1861, pages 762–776, London, UK, 2000. Springer. 452, 452, 463, 466

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Leuschel. Program specialisation and abstract interpretation reconciled. In Joxan Jaffar, editor, Proceedings of JICSLP’98, pages 220–234, Manchester, UK, 1998. MIT Press. 453, 453, 456, 457, 457, 458, 464

    Google Scholar 

  15. M. Leuschel and H. Lehmann. Coverability of reset Petri nets and other wellstructured transition systems by partial deduction. In J. Lloyd et al., editor, Proceedings of CL’2000, LNAI 1861, pages 101–115, London, UK, 2000. Springer. 456, 456, 456

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Leuschel and H. Lehmann. Solving coverability problems of Petri nets by partial deduction. In Proceedings of PPDP’2000. ACM Press, 2000. To appear. 452, 452, 452, 453, 456

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Leuschel, B. Martens, and D. De Schreye. Controlling generalisation and polyvariance in partial deduction of normal logic programs. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst., 20(1):208–258, 1998. 456, 459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. J. W. Lloyd and J. C. Shepherdson. Partial evaluation in logic programming. J. Logic Program., 11(3&4):217–242, 1991. 456

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. R. Marlet. Vers une Formalisation de l' Évaluation Partielle. PhD thesis, Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, 1994. 461

    Google Scholar 

  20. G. Plotkin. Building in equational theories. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, number 7, pages 73–90, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1972. Edinburgh University Press. 454

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. H. Siekmann. Unification theory. Journal of Symbolic Computation, 7(3–4):207–274, 1989. 455

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. M. H. Sørensen and R. Glück. An algorithm of generalization in positive supercompilation. In J. Lloyd, editor, Proceedings of ILPS’95, pages 465–479, Portland, USA, 1995. MIT Press. 460, 461

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Thielscher. From Situation Calculus to Fluent Calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. AIJ, 111(1–2):277–299, 1999. 453

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. E. Yardeni and E. Shapiro. A type system for logic programs. J. Logic Program., 10(2):125–154, 1990. 453, 457, 458

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, Highfield, Southampton, UK

    Helko Lehmann & Michael Leuschel

Authors
  1. Helko Lehmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Leuschel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS, Université de Paris 7, case 7012, 2 place Jussieu, 75251, Paris Cedex 05, France

    Michel Parigot

  2. Computer Science Department, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK

    Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lehmann, H., Leuschel, M. (2000). Solving Planning Problems by Partial Deduction. In: Parigot, M., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming and Automated Reasoning. LPAR 2000. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence(), vol 1955. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44404-1_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44404-1_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-41285-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44404-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation