Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Complexity of Planning in Action Formalisms Based on Description Logics

  • Conference paper
Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning (LPAR 2007)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4790))

Abstract

In this paper, we continue the recently started work on integrating action formalisms with description logics (DLs), by investigating planning in the context of DLs. We prove that the plan existence problem is decidable for actions described in fragments of \({\mathcal ALCQIO}\). More precisely, we show that its computational complexity coincides with the one of projection for DLs between \(\mathcal{ALC}\) and \({\mathcal ALCQIO}\) if operators contain only unconditional post-conditions. If we allow for conditional post-conditions, the plan existence problem is shown to be in 2-\(\textnormal{\sc ExpSpace}\).

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. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., Wolter, F.: Integrating description logics and action formalisms: First results. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2005, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., Wolter, F.: Integrating description logics and action formalisms for reasoning about web services. Technical Report LTCS 05-02, TU Dresden (2005), See http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/research/reports.html

  4. Bylander, T.: The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence 69(1-2), 165–204 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Castellini, C., Giunchiglia, E., Tacchella, A.: Sat-based planning in complex domains: Concurrency, constraints and nondeterminism. Artif. Intell. 147(1-2), 85–117 (2003)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Erol, K., Nau, D.S., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Complexity, decidability and undecidability results for domain-independent planning: A detailed analysis. Technical Report CS-TR-2797, University of Maryland College Park (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Erol, K., Nau, D.S., Subrahmanian, V.S.: Complexity, decidability and undecidability results for domain-independent planning. Artificial Intelligence 76(1-2), 75–88 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Haslum, P., Jonsson, P.: Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In: Biundo, S., Fox, M. (eds.) ECP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1809, pp. 308–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F., van Harmelen, F.: From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Journal of Web Semantics 1(1), 7–26 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Reasoning about actions using description logics with general TBoxes. In: Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) JELIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4160, pp. 266–279. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu, H., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Wolter, F.: Updating description logic ABoxes. In: Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 46–56 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nebel, B.: Terminological reasoning is inherently intractable. Artificial Intelligence 43, 235–249 (1990)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Palacios, H., Geffner, H.: Compiling uncertainty away: Solving conformant planning problems using a classical planner (sometimes). In: Proc. of AAAI 2006 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Rintanen, J.: Complexity of planning with partial observability. In: Proceedings of (ICAPS 2004), pp. 345–354 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Savitch, W.J.: Relationship between nondeterministic and deterministic tape complexities. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 4, 177–192 (1970)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Thielscher, M.: Introduction to the Fluent Calculus. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 2(3–4), 179–192 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden, Germany

    Maja Miličić

Authors
  1. Maja Miličić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Nachum Dershowitz Andrei Voronkov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Miličić, M. (2007). Complexity of Planning in Action Formalisms Based on Description Logics. In: Dershowitz, N., Voronkov, A. (eds) Logic for Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Reasoning. LPAR 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4790. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75560-9_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75560-9_30

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-75558-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-75560-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation