Belief Update in the pGOLOG Framework
- 343 Downloads
High-level controllers that operate robots in dynamic, uncertain domains are concerned with at least two reasoning tasks dealing with the effects of noisy sensors and effectors: They have a) to project the effects of a candidate plan and b) to update their beliefs during on-line execution of a plan. In this paper, we show how the pGOLOG framework, which in its original form only accounted for the projection of high-level plans, can be extended to reason about the way the robot’s beliefs evolve during the on-line execution of a plan. pGOLOG, an extension of the high-level programming language GOLOG, allows the specification of probabilistic beliefs about the state of the world and the representation of sensors and effectors which have uncertain, probabilistic outcomes. As an application of belief update, we introduce belief-based programs, GOLOG-style programs whose tests appeal to the agent’s beliefs at execution time.
KeywordsExecution Time Belief State Reasoning Task Reply Action Primitive Action
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [BCF+00]W. Burgard, A.B. Cremers, D. Fox, D. Hähnel, G. Lakemeyer, D. Schulz, W. Steiner, and S. Thrun. Experiences with an interactive museum tour-guide robot. Artificial Intelligence, 114(1-2), 2000.Google Scholar
- [BHL99]F. Bacchus, J.Y. Halpern, and H. Levesque. Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 111(1-2), 1999.Google Scholar
- [BRST00]C. Boutilier, R. Reiter, M. Soutchanski, and S. Thrun. Decision-theoretic, high-level agent programming in the situation calculus. In AAAI’2000, 2000.Google Scholar
- [dGL99]G. de Giacomo and H.J. Levesque. Anincremental interpreter for high-level programs with sensing. In H. Levesque and F. Pirri, editors, Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents, pages 86–102. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
- [DHW94]D. Draper, S. Hanks, and D. Weld. Probabilistic planning with information gathering and contingent execution. In Proc. of AIPS’94, 1994.Google Scholar
- [GL00]H. Grosskreutz and G. Lakemeyer. Turning high-level plans into robot programs in uncertain domains. In ECAI’2000, 2000.Google Scholar
- [GL01]H. Grosskreutz and G. Lakemeyer. Online-execution of ccgolog plans. In IJCAI, 2001.Google Scholar
- [KLC98]L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. R. Cassandra. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence 101(pp1-2, 1998.Google Scholar
- [Lev96]H. J. Levesque. What is planning in the presence of sensing. In AAAI’96, 1996.Google Scholar
- [LPR98]Hector Levesque, Fiora Pirri, and Ray Reiter. Foundations for the situation calculus. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science, 3(18), 1998. URL: http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1998/018/.
- [McC63]J. McCarthy. Situations, actions and causal laws. Technical report, Stanford University. Reprinted 1968 in Semantic Information Processing, MIT Press, 1963.Google Scholar
- [Poo98]David Poole. Decision theory, the situation calculus and conditional plans. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science, 3(8), 1998. URL: http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1998/008/.
- [Rei00]R. Reiter. On knowledge-based programming with sensing in the situation calculus. In Second International Cognitive Robotics Workshop, 2000.Google Scholar