Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Situational Calculus, linear connection proofs and STRIPS-like planning: An experimental comparison

  • Contributed Papers
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods (TABLEAUX 1996)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1071))

Abstract

The paper presents implementations of two logical approaches to plan generation-Linear Connection Proofs and Situational Calculus- and analyses the reasons for their different computational performance. Both implementations are then compared with the planning system ucpop on a set of benchmarks. The interesting outcome is that the logical approaches compete rather well with ucpop and, in particular, with the exploitation of modern theorem proving technology as symbolic constraints, the performance of Situational Calculus is no longer completely disastrous.

On leave from: Institut für Informatik, TU München, D - 80290 München

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. Barrett and D. Weld. Partial-order planning: Evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artificial Intelligence, 67(1):71–112, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. W. Bibel. Automated Theorem Proving. Vieweg, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  3. W. Bibel. A Deductive Solution for Plan Generation. New Generation Computing, 6:115–132, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. Bibel, L. Fariñas del Cerro, B. Fronhöfer, and A. Herzig. Plan Generation by Linear Proofs: On Semantics. In D. Metzing, editor, GWAI'89, 13 th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, volume 216 of Informatik-Fachberichte, pages 49–62, Schloß Eringerfeld, Geseke, Germany, September 1989. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  5. T. Bollinger. A Model Elimination Calculus for Generalized Clauses. In R. Reiter J. Mylopoulos, editor, IJCAI-91, pages 126–131, August 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  6. B. Fronhöfer. Linearity and Plan Generation. New Gen. Computing, 5:213–225, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  7. B. Fronhöfer. Default Connections a Modal Planning Framework. In J. Hertzberg, editor, European Workshop on Planning (EWSP-91), pages 39–52, Bonn, March 18–19 1991. St.Augustin, Germany, LNAI 522, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B. Fronhöfer. Linear Proofs and Linear Logic. In D. Pearce and G. Wagner, editors, Logics in AI, pages 106–125, Berlin, September 7–10 1992. JELIA'92, LNCS 633.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Fronhöfer. The action-as-implication paradigm: Formal systems and application. Habilitationsschrift, TU München, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ch. Goller, R. Letz, K. Mayr, and J. Schumann. Setheo V3.2: Recent Developments. In Alan Bundy, editor, CADE'94, pages 778–782, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. C. Green. Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving. In IJCAI-1, pages 219–239, 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  12. G. Große, S. Hölldobler, and J. Schneeberger. Linear Deductive Planning. Technical report, Intellektik, Informatik, TH Darmstadt, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Große, S. Hölldobler, J. Schneeberger, U. Sigmund, and M. Thielscher. Equational Logic Programming, Actions, and Change. In Proc. Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming JICSLP'92, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  14. S. Hölldobler and M. Thielscher. On logic, change, and specificity. Intellektik, Informatik, TH Darmstadt, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  15. E. Jacopin. Classical AI Planning as Theorem Proving: The Case of a Fragment of Linear Logic. In AAAI Fall Syposium on “Automated Deduction in Non Classical Logics”, pages 62–66, Palo Alto, 1993. AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. E. Jacopin. Construire des plans en utilisant le calcul des séquents pour un fragment de la logique linéaire. Tech. report, Laforia-IBP, Univ. P. et M. Curie, Paris, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Kowalski. Logic for Problem Solving. North Holland, New York, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. Letz, S. Bayerl, J. Schumann, and B. Fronhöfer. The Logic Programming Language LOP. Technical report, Technische Universität München, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  19. R. Letz, K. Mayr, and C. Goller. Controlled Integration of the Cut Rule into Connection Tableau Calculi. JAR, 13:297–337, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. Letz, J. Schumann, S. Bayerl, and W. Bibel. SETHEO: A High-Performance Theorem Prover. JAR, 8(2):183–212, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. V. Lifshitz. On the Semantics of STRIPS. In M.P. Georgeff and A.L. Lansky, editors, Workshop on Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 1–8. Morgan Kaufmann, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  22. M. Masseron, C. Tollu, and J. Vauzeilles. Generating Plans in Linear Logic. Technical Report 90-11, Université Paris Nord, Dép. de math. et informatique, December 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some Philosophical Problems from the Stand-point of Artificial Intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  24. N. J. Nilsson. Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Springer, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J.S. Penberthy and D. Weld. UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In KR-92, pages 103–114, October 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  26. D. Plaisted. The Search Efficiency of Theorem Proving Strategies. In Alan Bundy, editor, CADE'94, pages 57–71, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  27. R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus. In Vladimir Lifschitz, editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Schneeberger and S. Hölldobler. A New Deductive Approach to Planning. New Generation Computing, 8:225–244, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fac. des Sciences, Université d'Angers, F - 49045, Angers Cedex 01

    Bertram Fronhöfer

Authors
  1. Bertram Fronhöfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

P. Miglioli U. Moscato D. Mundici M. Ornaghi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Fronhöfer, B. (1996). Situational Calculus, linear connection proofs and STRIPS-like planning: An experimental comparison. In: Miglioli, P., Moscato, U., Mundici, D., Ornaghi, M. (eds) Theorem Proving with Analytic Tableaux and Related Methods. TABLEAUX 1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 1071. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61208-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-61208-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-61208-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-68368-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics