Advertisement

Using histories to model observations in theories of action

  • Javier A. Pinto
Reasoning with Changing and Incomplete Information
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1359)

Abstract

In this article we present an approach to integrate observations in theories of action written in the Situation Calculus, a state-based, branching temporal language. In our approach, observations are added as dynamic constraints on valid histories. We describe two applications of these dynamic constraints, namely the representation of observations of action occurrences as well as observations of truth values of fluents.

An important novelty of our proposal is that we do not need to make unnecessary assumptions regarding the occurrence or non-occurrence of events. Furthermore, by virtue of exploiting the branching nature of time in the Situation Calculus, we can reason, within the logic, about all possible ways in which the world can evolve; i.e., without having to appeal to meta-theoretic constructs.

Keywords

Initial Situation Dynamic Constraint Frame Problem Action Occurrence Concurrent Action 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Baral, M. Gelfond, and A. Provetti. Representing Actions: Laws, Observations and Hypotheses. Journal of Logic Programming, 31:201–244, 1997.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. Representing Action and Change by Logic Programs. The Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–322, 1993.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hector J. Levesque, Raymond Reiter, Yves Lespérance, Fangzhen Lin, and Richard B. Scherl. GOLOG: A Logic Programming Language for Dynamic Domains. The Journal of Logic Programming, 31:59–84, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rob Miller and Murray Shanahan. Narratives in the Situation Calculus. The Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):513–530, 1994.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Javier Pinto. Concurrent Events: Synergy and Cancellation of Effects. In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Workshop on Logic and Change, pages 105–110, 1994. URL = ftp://lyrcc.ing.puc.cl/pub/jpinto/ecai.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Javier Pinto. Temporal Reasoning in the Situation Calculus. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 1994. URL = ftp://ftp.cs.toronto.edu/~cogrob/jpThesis.ps.Z.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Javier Pinto. Occurrences and Narratives as Constraints in the Branching Structure of the Situation Calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1998. To appear.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Javier Pinto and Raymond Reiter. Reasoning about Time in the Situation Calculus. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 14(2–4):251–268, September 1995.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Javier A. Pinto. On the Existence and Formalization of Natural Events. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change., August 1995. URL = ftp://lyrcc.ing.puc.cl/pub/jpinto/ijcwrk.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raymond Reiter. The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression, pages 359–380. Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raymond Reiter. Proving Properties of States in the Situation Calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 64(2):337–351, December 1993.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raymond Reiter. Natural Actions, Concurrency and Continuous Time in the Situation Calculus. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference(KR'96), Cambridge, Massachussetts, U.S.A., November 1996. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richard Scherl and Hector Levesque. The Frame Problem and Knowledge Producing Actions. In Proceedings AAAI-93, pages 689–695, Washington, D.C., July 1993. AAAI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier A. Pinto
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencia de la Computación, Escuela de IngenieríaPontificia Universidad Católica de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations