Nonmonotonic temporal logics and autonomous agents: each contributes to the rigorous basis for the other

  • Erik Sandewall
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)


There is a mutual relationship between the software architecture of an intelligent autonomous agent and a logic for reasoning about action and change. The logic can be used as a formal basis for the software, and at the same time the design of the agent defines the reality that the logic is supposed to describe.

In the work reported here we have defined the relationship between the software architecture and the logic in a formal fashion, and used it for the formal analysis of several proposed logics. The same software architecture has also been used as the guiding principle for an implementation project. On this basis it has been possible to identify upper as well as lower bounds on the range of applicability for several of the logics which have previously been described in the literature.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [GN87]
    Michael R. Genesereth and Nils J. Nilsson. Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence. Morgan-Kaufmann Publishing Co., 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [HM87]
    Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott. Nonmonotonic logics and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33 (3): 379–412, 1987.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [Kau86]
    Henry Kautz. The logic of persistence. In Proc. AAAI 1986, pages 401–405, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. [Lif91]
    Vladimir Lifschitz. Toward a metatheory of action. In International Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 376–386, 1991.Google Scholar
  5. [LS91]
    Fangzhen Lin and Yoav Shoham. Provably correct theories of action (prelim-inary report). In National (U.S.) Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 349–354, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. [McC84]
    John McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. In Proc. of the Nonmonotonic reasoning workshop, pages 295–324, October 1984.Google Scholar
  7. [Rei91]
    Ray Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Vladimir Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [San89]
    Erik Sandewall. Filter preferential entailment for the logic of action in almost continuous worlds. In Proc. International Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, Detroit, USA,1989.Google Scholar
  9. [San92]
    Erik Sandewall. Features and fluents. Review version of 1992. Technical Report LiTH-IDA-R-92–30, Linköping University, Department of Computer and Information Science, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. [San93a]
    Erik Sandewall. The range of applicability of nonmonotonic logics for the inertia problem. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. [San93b]
    Erik Sandewall. The range of applicability of some nonmonotonic logics for simple inertia (extended version). Submitted for publication, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [San93c]
    Erik Sandewall. The role of temporal reasoning subsystems in the architecture of autonomous robots. In G. Rzevski, J. Pastor, and R.A. Adey, editors, Artificial Intelligence in Engineering VIII, pages 3–6. Computational Mechanics Publications/ Elsevier, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. [San93d]
    Erik Sandewall. Systematic assessment of temporal reasoning methods for use in autonomous agents. In J. Komorowski and Z.W. Ras, editors, International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pages 558–570. Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, no. 689, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Sandewall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations