Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning pp 259–279Cite as

Perspectives on Logic-Based Approaches for Reasoning about Actions and Change

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6565))

Abstract

Action languages have gained popularity as a means for declaratively describing planning domains. This paper overviews two action languages, the Boolean language \(\mathcal{B}\) and its multi-valued counterpart \(\mathcal{B}^{MV}\). The paper analyzes some of the issues in using two alternative logic programming approaches (Answer Set Programming and Constraint Logic Programming over Finite Domains) for planning with \(\mathcal{B}\) and \(\mathcal{B}^{MV}\) specifications. In particular, the paper provides an experimental comparison between these alternative implementation approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baral, C., Son, T., Tuan, L.-C.: A transition function based characterization of actions with delayed and continuous effects. In: Fensel, D., Giunchiglia, F., McGuinness, D.L., Williams, M.-A. (eds.) KR 2002: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 291–302. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blum, A., Furst, M.: Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artificial Intelligence 90, 281–300 (1997)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: A comparison of CLP(FD) and ASP solutions to NP-complete problems. In: Gabbrielli, M., Gupta, G. (eds.) ICLP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3668, pp. 67–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: An experimental comparison of constraint logic programming and answer set programming. In: Howe, A., Holt, R. (eds.) AAAI 2007: Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1622–1625. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: Multivalued action languages with constraints in CLP(FD). In: Dahl, V., Niemelä, I. (eds.) ICLP 2007. LNCS, vol. 4670, pp. 255–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: An empirical study of CLP and ASP solutions of combinatorial problems. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 21(2), 79–121 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: Representing multi-agent planning in CLP. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 423–429. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: An investigation of Multi-Agent Planning in CLP. Fundamenta Informaticae (2010) (to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: Autonomous agents coordination: Action description languages meet CLP(FD) and Linda. In: Proceedings of the 25th Italian Conference on Computational Logic. Workshop Proceedings, vol. 598, CEUR (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E.: Multivalued action languages with constraints in CLP(FD). Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 10(2), 167–235 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Neumann, A., Schaub, T.: clasp: A conflict-driven answer set solver. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J.S. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4483, pp. 260–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Gebser, M., Schaub, T., Thiele, S.: GrinGo: A new grounder for answer set programming. In: Baral, C., Brewka, G., Schlipf, J.S. (eds.) LPNMR 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4483, pp. 266–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Gelfond, G., Baral, C., Pontelli, E., Tran, S.: Logic programmin for finding models in the logics of knowledge and its applications. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 10(4-6), 675–690 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Representing actions in extended logic programming. In: Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 559–573. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 2, 193–210 (1998)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaffar, J., Maher, M.J.: Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming 19/20, 503–581 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee, J., Lifschitz, V.: Describing additive fluents in action language C+. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2003, Acapulco, Mexico, August 9-15, pp. 1079–1084. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Levesque, H., Pirri, F., Reiter, R.: GOLOG: a logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31(1-3), 59–83 (1997)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Lifschitz, V.: Answer set planning. In: de Schreye, D. (ed.) Proc. of the 16th Intl. Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 23–37. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Marek, V.W., Truszczyński, M.: Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. In: Apt, K., Marek, V., Truszczyński, M., Warren, D. (eds.) The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 375–398. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Niemelä, I.: Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3-4), 241–273 (1999)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Son, T., Baral, C., McIlraith, S.A.: Planning with different forms of domain-dependent control knowledge - an answer set programming approach. In: Eiter, T., Faber, W., Truszczyński, M. (eds.) LPNMR 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2173, pp. 226–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Son, T., Pontelli, E., Sakama, C.: Logic programming for multiagent planning with negotiation. In: Hill, P.M., Warren, D.S. (eds.) ICLP 2009. LNCS, vol. 5649, pp. 99–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Subrahmanian, V.S., Zaniolo, C.: Relating stable models and ai planning domains. In: Sterling, L. (ed.) ICLP 1995: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 233–247. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thielscher, M.: Reasoning about actions with cHRs and finite domain constraints. In: Stuckey, P.J. (ed.) ICLP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2401, pp. 70–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Tran, S., Pontelli, E.: Planning with preferences using logic programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 6(5), 559–607 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Warren, D.: WARPLAN: A system for generating plans. Technical Report DCL Memo 76, University of Edinburgh (1974)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Univ. di Udine, Italy

    Agostino Dovier

  2. Dip. di Matematica e Informatica, Univ. di Perugia, Italy

    Andrea Formisano

  3. Dept. Computer Science, New Mexico State University, USA

    Enrico Pontelli

Authors
  1. Agostino Dovier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Formisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enrico Pontelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA

    Marcello Balduccini

  2. Department of Computer Science, New Mexico State University, 88003, Las Cruces, NM, USA

    Tran Cao Son

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dovier, A., Formisano, A., Pontelli, E. (2011). Perspectives on Logic-Based Approaches for Reasoning about Actions and Change. In: Balduccini, M., Son, T.C. (eds) Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6565. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20832-4_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20831-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20832-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation