Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 409-438

  Giunchiglia, Enrico ^a   Kartha, G Neelakantan ^b   Lifschitz, Vladimir ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

^b i2 Technologies   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Action languages; Circumscription; Nested abnormality theories; Nondeterministic actions; Ramification problem

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DIFFERENTIATION (CALCULUS); HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGES; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ACTION LANGUAGES; NESTED ABNORMALITY THEORIES; NONDETERMINISTIC ACTIONS; RAMIFICATION PROBLEM;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 0031220639     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00037-4     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. A. Baker, Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus, Artificial Intelligence 49 (1991) 5-23.
2. C. Baral and M. Gelfond, Representing concurrent actions in extended logic programming, in: Proceedings IJCAI-93, Chambery, France (1993) 866-871.
3. P. Doherty, W. Łukaszewicz and A. Szałas, Computing circumscription revisited: A reduction algorithm, J. Automated Reasoning (1997), to appear.
4. P.M. Dung, Representing actions in logic programming and its applications in database updates, in: Proceedings 10th International Conference on Logic Programming, Budapest, Hungary (1993) 222-238.
5. C. Elkan, Reasoning about action in first-order logic, in: Proceedings 1992 Canadian Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver, BC (1992).
6. D. Gabbay and H. Ohlbach, Quantifier elimination in second-order predicate logic, in: B. Nebel, C. Rich and W. Swartout, eds., Proceedings 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA (1992) 425-435.
7. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Representing action and change by logic programs, J. Logic Programming 17 (1993) 301-322.
8. E. Giunchiglia, G.N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (extended abstract), in: Working Notes of the Symposium on Extending Theories of Actions (1995).
9. E. Giunchiglia and V. Lifschitz, Dependent fluents, in: Proceedings IJCAI-95, Montreal, Que. (1995) 1964-1969.
10. S. Hanks and D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection, Artificial Intelligence 33 (1987) 379-412.
11. G.N. Kartha, Soundness and completeness theorems for three formalizations of action, in: Proceedings IJCAI-93, Chambery, France (1993) 724-729.
12. G.N. Kartha, Two counterexamples related to Baker's approach to the frame problem, Artificial Intelligence 69 (1994) 379-391.
13. G.N. Kartha, A mathematical investigation of reasoning about actions, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1995; available by anonymous ftp from ftp.cs.utexas.edu as /pub/techreports/tr95-17.ps.
14. G.N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report), in: Proceedings 4th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Bonn (1994) 341-350.
15. G.N. Kartha and V. Lifschitz, A simple formalization of actions using circumscription, in: Proceedings IJCAI-95, Montreal, Que. (1995) 1970-1975.
16. V. Lifschitz, Restricted monotonicity, in: Proceedings AAAI-93, Washington, DC (1993) 432-437.
17. V. Lifschitz, Circumscription, in: D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger and J.A. Robinson, eds., The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Vol. 3 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994) 298-352.
18. V. Lifschitz, Nested abnormality theories, Artificial Intelligence 74 (1995) 351-365.
19. V. Lifschitz, Two components of an action language, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. (1997), to appear.
20. F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Provably correct theories of action (preliminary report), in: Proceedings AAAI-91, Anaheim, CA (1991) 349-354.
21. N. McCain and H. Turner, A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications, in: Proceedings IJCAI-95, Montreal, Que. (1995) 1978-1984.
22. J. McCarthy, Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 26 (1986) 89-116; reproduced in: J. McCarthy, Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
23. J. McCarthy, Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 26 (1986) 89-116; reproduced in: J. McCarthy, Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
24. J. McCarthy, Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
25. J. McCarthy and P. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds., Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4 (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969) 463-502; Reproduced in: J. McCarthy, Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
26. J. McCarthy and P. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds., Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4 (Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 1969) 463-502; Reproduced in: J. McCarthy, Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy (Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1990).
27. E. Pednault, ADL: exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus, in: R. Brachman, H. Levesque and R. Reiter, eds., Proceedings 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Ont. (1989) 324-332.
28. R. Reiter, The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression, in: V. Lifschitz, ed., Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy (Academic Press, New York, 1991) 359-380.
29. E. Sandewall, Features and Fluents, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995).
30. E. Sandewall and Y. Shoham, Non-monotonic temporal reasoning, in: D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger and J.A. Robinson, eds., The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Vol. 4 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995) 439-498.
31. L. Schubert, Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: an efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions, in: H.E. Kyburg, R. Loui and G. Carlson, eds., Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning (Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 1990) 23-67.
32. H. Turner, Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: a situation calculus approach, J. Logic Programming (1997), to appear.
33. M. Winslett, Reasoning about action using a possible models approach, in: Proceedings AAAI-88, St. Paul, MN (1988) 89-93.