Skip to main content

Consistency of Action Descriptions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
PRICAI 2002: Trends in Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2417))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 888 Accesses

Abstract

As a contribution to the metatheory of reasoning about actions, we present some characteristics of the consistency of action theories. Three levels of consistency are investigated for the evaluation of action descriptions: uniform consistency, consistency of formulas and regional consistency. The first two provide an intuitive resolution of problems of explanation conflicts and fluent dependency. The concept of regional consistency provides for a measure of ramification. A highly expressive form of action descriptions, the normal form, is introduced to facilitate this analysis. The relative satisfiability of the situation calculus is generalized to accommodate non-deterministic effects and ramifications.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. M. A. Castilho, O. Gasquet, and A. Herzig, Formalizing action and change in modal logic i: the frame problem. Journal of Logic and Computations, 9:701–735, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Denecker, D. T. Dupré, and K. Van Belleghem, An inductive definition approach to ramifications, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol 2, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Fikes and N. Nilsson, Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 608–620. William Kaufmann, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. Foo and D. Zhang, Dealing with the ramification problem in the extended propositional dynamic logic. in F. Wolter, H. Wansing, M. de Rijke, and M. Zakharyaschev eds, Advances in Modal Logic, Volume 3, CSLI Publications, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. N. Foo and D. Zhang, Lazy-formalization to the frame problem, manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Action language. Electronic Transactions on AI, 16(3), 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  7. M. L. Ginsberg and D. E. Smith, Reasoning about action I: a possible worlds approach, in: Artificial Intelligence, 35(1988), 165–195.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. R. Goldblatt, Logics of Time and Computation. Stanford University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. Hanks and D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33(3):379–412, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. G. N. Kartha, Soundness and completeness theories for three formalizations of action. In: IJCAI’93, 724–729, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  11. V. Lifschitz, Frames in the space of situations. Artificial Intelligence, 46:365–376, 1990.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. V. Lifschitz, Towards a metatheory of action. In: KR’91, 376–386, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  13. V. Lifschitz, Situation calculus and causal logic. In: KR-98, 536–546, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. F. Lin and R. Reiter, State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5): 655–677, 1994.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. F Lin and Y. Shoham, Provably correct theories of action, J. ACM 42(2):293–320, 1995.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. F. Lin, Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In: IJCAI-95, 1985-1991, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. J. McCarthy and P. J. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds., Machine Intelligence 4, Edingburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 463–502, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  18. F. Pirri and R. Reiter, Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. Journal of ACM, 3(46):325–361, 1999.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. H. Prendinger and G. Schurz, Reasoning about action and change: A dynamic logic approach. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 5:209–245, 1996.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. R. Reiter, The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschit, editor, Artificial Intelligence and the Mathematical Theory of Computation, Academic Press, 359–380, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. Sandewall, Features and Fluents. Oxford University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Murray Shanahan, Solving the Frame Problem: a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia. MIT Press, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  23. M. Thielscher, Ramification and causality, Artificial Intelligence, 89:317–364, 1997.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. D. Zhang and N. Foo, EPDL: a logic for causal reasoning, Proceedings of IJCAI-01, 131–136, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Zhang, D., Chopra, S., Foo, N.Y. (2002). Consistency of Action Descriptions. In: Ishizuka, M., Sattar, A. (eds) PRICAI 2002: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2417. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45683-X_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45683-X_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-44038-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45683-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics