Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Answer Set Planning in Single- and Multi-agent Environments

  • Technical Contribution
  • Published:
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present the main ideas of answer set planning in both single- and multi-agent environments. Specifically, we describe a systematic translation of a dynamic domain—given as set of statements in an action language such as \(\mathcal{B}\)—into a logic program which can be used for planning and other reasoning tasks (e.g., diagnosis) given the dynamic domain. We illustrate the issues of answer set planning in different settings and their solutions using a well-known problem domain, the Kiva robot system.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is a special case of the more general problem of finding a plan of any length. In this paper, we focus on the simpler variant to keep the presentation simple.

  2. One may also use obs(f, i) and \(\lnot obs(f,i)\), but the representation we adopt simplifies the writing of some rules.

References

  1. Balduccini M, Gelfond M (2003) Diagnostic reasoning with A-Prolog. J Theory Pract Log Program (TPLP) 3(4–5):425–461

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Balduccini M, Gelfond M (2003) Logic programs with consistency-restoring rules. In: International symposium on logical formalization of commonsense reasoning, AAAI spring symposium series, pp 9–18

  3. Balduccini M, Gelfond M, Watson R, Nogueira M (2001) The USA-advisor: a case study in answer set planning. In: Lectures notes in artificial intelligence (proceedings of the sixth international conference on logic programming and nonmonotonic reasoning, LPNMR’01), Springer, vol 2173, pp 439–442

  4. Baral C, Son TC, Pontelli E (2010) Reasoning about multi-agent domains using action language \(\cal{C}\): a preliminary study. In: Dix J, Fisher M, Novák P (eds) Computational logic in multi-agent systems—10th international workshop, CLIMA X, Hamburg, Germany, September 9–10, 2009, Springer, vol 6214. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 46–63 (revised selected and invited papers)

  5. Buccafurri F, Leone N, Rullo P (1997) Adding weak constraints to disjunctive datalog. In: Proceedings of the 1997 joint conference on declarative programming APPIA-GULP-PRODE’97, Grado, Italy

  6. Durfee E (1999) Distributed problem solving and planning. In: Weiss G (ed) Muliagent systems (A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence). MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 121–164

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1998) Action languages. Electron Trans. Artif Intell 3(6):195–210

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL—the planning domain definition language. Version 1.2. Tech. Rep. CVC TR98003/DCS TR1165, Yale Center for Comp, Vis and Ctrl

  9. Hayes PJ, McCarthy J (1960) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B, Michie D (eds) Machine intelligence, vol 4. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 463–502

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kautz H, Selman B (1992) Planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of ECAI-92, Vienna, Austria, pp 359–363

  11. Le HV, Pontelli E (2005) An investigation of sharing strategies for answer set solvers and SAT solvers. In: Cunha JC, Medeiros PD (eds) Euro-Par 2005, parallel processing, 11th international Euro-Par conference, Lisbon, Portugal, August 30–September 2, 2005, Springer. Proceedings, vol 3648. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 750–760

  12. Lifschitz V (2002) Answer set programming and plan generation. Artif Intell 138(1–2):39–54

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Marek V, Truszczyński M (1999) Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt K, Marek VW, Truszczynski M, Warren DS (eds) The logic programming paradigm: a 25-year perspective, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 375–398

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen VD, Obermeier P, Son TC, Schaub T, Yeoh W (2017) Generalized target assignment and path finding using answer set programming. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2017), Melbourne, Australia, pp 1216–1223

  15. Niemelä I (1999) Logic programming with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann Math Artif Intell 25(3, 4):241–273

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Schneidenbach L, Schnor B, Gebser M, Kaminski R, Kaufmann B, Schaub T (2009) Experiences running a parallel answer set solver on blue gene. In: Ropo M, Westerholm J, Dongarra J (eds) Recent advances in parallel virtual machine and message passing interface, 16th European PVM/MPI users’ group meeting, Espoo, Finland, September 7–10, 2009, Springer, vol 5759, Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science, pp 64–72

  17. Son T, Pontelli E, Sakama C (2009) Logic programming for multiagent planning with negotiation. In: Hill PM, Warren DS (eds) Logic programming, 25th international conference, ICLP 2009, Pasadena, CA, USA, July 14–17, 2009, Springer. Proceedings, vol 5649. Lecture notes in computer science, pp 99–114

  18. Son TC, Pontelli E, Nguyen N, Sakama C (2014) Formalizing negotiations using logic programming. ACM Trans Comput Log 15(2):12

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Son TC, Pontelli E, Nguyen NH (2010) Planning for multiagent using ASP-Prolog. In: Dix J, Fisher M, Novák P (eds) Computational logic in multi-agent systems—10th international workshop, CLIMA X, Hamburg, Germany, September 9–10, 2009, Springer, vol 6214, Lecture notes in computer science, pp 1–21 (revised selected and invited papers)

  20. Wurman P, D’Andrea R, Mountz M (2008) Coordinating hundreds of cooperative, autonomous vehicles in warehouses. AI Mag 29(1):9–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, 88003, USA

    Tran Cao Son

  2. Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA, 19131, USA

    Marcello Balduccini

Authors
  1. Tran Cao Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcello Balduccini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tran Cao Son.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Son, T.C., Balduccini, M. Answer Set Planning in Single- and Multi-agent Environments. Künstl Intell 32, 133–141 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-018-0546-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-018-0546-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation