Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Doctoral Consortium Extended Abstract: Planning with Concurrent Transaction Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR 2015)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 9345))

  • 786 Accesses

Abstract

Automated planning has been the subject of intensive research and is at the core of several areas of AI, including intelligent agents and robotics. In this thesis proposal, we argue that Concurrent Transaction Logic (\( \mathcal {CTR}\)) is a natural specification language for planning algorithms, which enables one to see further afield and thus discover better and more general solutions than using one-of-a-kind formalisms. Specifically, we take the well-known \( \textit{STRIPS}\) planning strategy and show that \( \mathcal {CTR}\) lets one specify the \(\textit{STRIPS}\) planning algorithm easily and concisely, and extend it in several respects. For instance, we show that extensions to allow indirect effects and to support action ramifications come almost for free. The original \( \textit{STRIPS}\) planning strategy is also shown to be incomplete. Using concurrency operators in \( \mathcal {CTR}\), we propose a non-linear \( \textit{STRIPS}\) planning algorithm, which is proven to be complete. Moreover, this thesis proposal outlines several extensions of \( \textit{STRIPS}\) planning strategy. All of the extensions show that the use of \( \mathcal {CTR}\) accrues significant benefits in the area of planning.

Extended Abstract as part of the program of the 1st Joint ADT/LPNMR 2015 Doctoral Consortium co-chaired by Esra Erdem and Nicholas Mattei.

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

Access this chapter

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 EPUB and 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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To understand this report, the reader is expected to be familiar with \( \mathcal {CTR}\). We provide a brief introduction to the relevant subset of \( \mathcal {CTR}\) in [4] that is needed for the understanding of this paper. More explanation about \( \mathcal {CTR}\) can be found in [8–12].

  2. 2.

    In this case we will also say that \(\mathbf S_0,\mathbf S_1, \dots , \mathbf S_n\) is an execution of \(\sigma \).

References

  1. Barták, R., Toropila, D.: Solving sequential planning problems via constraint satisfaction. Fundam. Inform. 99(2), 125–145 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/FI-2010-242

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Basseda, R., Kifer, M.: State space planning using transaction logic. In: Pontelli, E., Son, T.C. (eds.) PADL 2015. LNCS, vol. 9131, pp. 17–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Basseda, R., Kifer, M.: Planning with regression analysis in transaction logic. In: ten Cate, B., Mileo, A. (eds.) RR 2015. LNCS, vol. 9209, pp. 45–60. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Basseda, R., Kifer, M., Bonner, A.J.: Planning with transaction logic. In: Kontchakov, R., Mugnier, M.-L. (eds.) RR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8741, pp. 29–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bibel, W.: A deductive solution for plan generation. New Gener. Comput. 4(2), 115–132 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Bibel, W.: A deductive solution for plan generation. In: Schmidt, J.W., Thanos, C. (eds.) Foundations of Knowledge Base Management. Topics in Information Systems, pp. 453–473. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bibel, W., del Cerro, L.F., Fronhfer, B., Herzig, A.: Plan generation by linear proofs: on semantics. In: Metzing, D. (ed.) GWAI-89 13th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence. Informatik-Fachberichte, vol. 216, pp. 49–62. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming. In: International Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 257–282. MIT Press, Budapest, Hungary, June 1993

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming (or a logic of declarative and procedural knowledge). Technical report CSRI-323, University of Toronto, November 1995. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bonner/transaction-logic.html

  10. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Concurrency and communication in transaction logic. In: Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 142–156. MIT Press, Bonn, Germany, September 1996

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: A logic for programming database transactions. In: Chomicki, J., Saake, G. (eds.) Logics for Databases and Information Systems, chap. 5, pp. 117–166. Kluwer Academic Publishers, March 1998

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: An overview of transaction logic. Theor. Comput. Sci. 133(2), 205–265 (1994)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Cresswell, S., Smaill, A., Richardson, J.: Deductive synthesis of recursive plans in linear logic. In: Biundo, S., Fox, M. (eds.) Recent Advances in AI Planning. LNCS, vol. 1809, pp. 252–264. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Erol, K., Hendler, J.A., Nau, D.S.: UMCP: a sound and complete procedure for hierarchical task-network planning. In: Hammond, K.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 13–15 June 1994, pp. 249–254. AAAI (1994). http://www.aaai.org/Library/AIPS/1994/aips94-042.php

  15. Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif. Intell. 2(3–4), 189–208 (1971)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Gebser, M., Kaufmann, R., Schaub, T.: Gearing up for effective ASP planning. In: Erdem, E., Lee, J., Lierler, Y., Pearce, D. (eds.) Correct Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 7265, pp. 296–310. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2363344.2363364

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electron. Trans. Artif. Intell. 2, 193–210 (1998). http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/etai/1998/007/

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Green, C.: Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1969, pp. 219–239. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA (1969). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1624562.1624585

  19. Hölldobler, S., Schneeberger, J.: A new deductive approach to planning. New Gener. Comput. 8(3), 225–244 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Kahramanoğulları, O.: On linear logic planning and concurrency. In: Martín-Vide, C., Otto, F., Fernau, H. (eds.) LATA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5196, pp. 250–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Kautz, H., Selman, B.: Planning as satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI 1992, pp. 359–363. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, USA (1992). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=145448.146725

  22. Lifschitz, V.: Answer set programming and plan generation. Artif. Intell. 138(12), 39–54 (2002). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0004370202001868, knowledge Representation and Logic Programming

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Son, T.C., Baral, C., Tran, N., Mcilraith, S.: Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set planning. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7(4), 613–657 (2006). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1183278.1183279

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Stefik, M.J.: Planning with Constraints. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, CA, USA (1980), aAI8016868

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported, in part, by the NSF grant 0964196. I also thank Prof. Michael Kifer for his great advises on my PhD research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794, USA

    Reza Basseda

Authors
  1. Reza Basseda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Basseda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Francesco Calimeri

  2. University of Calabria, Rende, Italy

    Giovambattista Ianni

  3. University of Kentucky Dept. Computer Science, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

    Miroslaw Truszczynski

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Basseda, R. (2015). Doctoral Consortium Extended Abstract: Planning with Concurrent Transaction Logic. In: Calimeri, F., Ianni, G., Truszczynski, M. (eds) Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. LPNMR 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9345. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_45

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23264-5_45

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-23263-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23264-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation