Formalizing narratives using nested circumscription

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 104, Issue 1-2, 1998, Pages 107-164

  Baral, Chitta ^a   Gabaldon, Alfredo ^a   Provetti, Alessandro ^b  

^a University of Texas at El Paso   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

Circumscription; Narratives; Nested abnormality theories; Reasoning about actions; Value minimization

Indexed keywords

CONSTRAINT THEORY; FORMAL LOGIC; HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGES;

NESTED ABNORMALITY THEORY (NAT); NESTED CIRCUMSCRIPTION;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 0032156243     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0004-3702(98)00070-8     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. J.F. Allen, Towards a general theory of action and time, Artificial Intelligence 23 (1984) 123-154.
2. C. Baral, Reasoning about actions: nondeterministic effects, constraints and qualification, in: Proc. 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montreal, Quebec, 1995, pp. 2017-2023.
3. C. Baral, M. Gelfond, Representing concurrent actions in extended logic programming, in: Proc. 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), Chambery, France, 1993, pp. 866-871.
4. C. Baral, M. Gelfond, Logic programming and knowledge representation, Journal of Logic Programming 19 (20) (1994) 73-148.
5. C. Baral, A. Gabaldon, A. Provetti, Formalizing narratives using nested circumscription, in: Proc. 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-96), Portland, OR, 1996, pp. 652-657.
6. C. Baral, A. Gabaldon, A. Provetti, Value minimization in circumscription, in: L.C. Aiello, J. Doyle, S. Shapiro (Eds.), Proc. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), 1996, pp. 474-481.
7. C. Baral, M. Gelfond, A. Provetti, Representing actions - I: laws, observations and hypothesis, in: Working Notes of AAAI Spring Symposium, Extending Theories of Actions: Formal Theories and Practical Applications, 1995.
8. C. Baral, M. Gelfond, A. Provetti, Representing actions: laws, observations and hypothesis, Journal of Logic Programming 31 (1-3) (1997) 201-243.
9. C. Baral, J. Lobo, Formal characterization of active databases, in: Proc. International Workshop on Logic in Databases, 1996.
10. P. Doherty, W. Lukaszewicz, A. Szalas, Computing circumscription revisited: a reduction algorithm, Journal of Automated Reasoning, to appear.
11. K. Erol, D. Nau, V.S. Subrahmanian, Complexity, decidability and undecidability results for domain-independent planning, Artificial Intelligence 76 (1-2) (1995) 75-88.
12. M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz, Representing actions in extended logic programs. in: Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, 1992, pp. 559-573.
13. M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz, A. Rabinov, What are the limitations of the situation calculus?, in: R. Boyer (Ed.), Automated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1991.
14. M. Georgeff (Ed.), Special Issue on Action and Processes, Journal of Logic and Computation 4 (5) (1994).
15. E. Giunchiglia, N. Kartha, V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (extended abstract), Working notes of AAAI Spring Symposium Extending Theories of Actions: Formal Theories and Practical Applications, Stanford, 1995.
16. E. Giunchiglia, N. Kartha, V. Lifschitz, Representing actions: indeterminacy and ramifications, Artificial Intelligence 97 (2) (1997) 409-443.
17. C. Hoare, An overview of some formal methods for program design, IEEE Computer 85-91 (September 1987).
18. A. Kakas, R. Kowalski, F. Toni, Abductive logic programming, Journal of Logic and Computation 2 (6) (1992) 719-770.
19. A. Kakas, R. Miller, A simple declarative language for describing narratives with actions, Journal of Logic Programming 31 (1-3) (1996) 157-200.
20. G.N. Kartha, Soundness and completeness theorems for three formalizations of action, in: Proc. 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), Chambery, France, 1993, pp. 712-718.
21. G.N. Kartha, A mathematical investigation of reasoning about actions, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1995.
22. N. Kartha, V. Lifschitz, Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report), in: Proc. 3rd Internat. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-94), Bonn, Germany, 1994, pp. 341-350.
23. R. Kowalski, M. Sergot, A logic-based calculus of events, New Generation Computing 4 (1986) 67-95.
24. V. Lifschitz, Nested abnormality theories, Artificial Intelligence 74 (1995) 351-365.
25. V. Lifschitz, Circumscription, in: D.M. Gabbay, C.J. Hogger, J.A. Robinson (Eds.), The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 298-352.
26. V. Lifschitz, Restricted monotonicity, in: Proc. AAAI-93, Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 432-437.
27. V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Special issue on reasoning about actions and change, Journal of Logic Programming 31 (1-3) (1997).
28. F. Lin, Y. Shoham, Concurrent actions in the situation calculus, in: Proc. AAAI-92, San Jose, CA, 1992, pp. 590-595.
29. W. Marek, V.S. Subrahmanian, The relationship between stable, supported, default and auto-epistemic semantics for general logic programs, in: G. Levi, M. Martelli (Eds.), Proc. 6th International Conference in Logic Programming, 1989, pp 600-620.
30. J. McCarthy, Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge, Artificial Intelligence 26 (3) (1986) 89-116.
31. J. McCarthy, Mathematical logic in Artificial Intelligence, Dædalus (1988) 297-311.
32. J. McCarthy, Overcoming an unexpected obstacle. Manuscript, 1992.
33. J. McCarthy, Situation calculus with concurrent events and narrative, Preliminary Manuscript, 1995 (available only at http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/narrative.dvi).
34. J. McCarthy, P. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in: B. Meltzer, D. Michie (Eds.), Machine Intelligence, Vol. 4, Edinburgh University Press, 1986, pp. 463-502.
35. R. Miller, M. Shanahan, Narratives in the situation calculus, Journal of Logic and Computation 4 (5) (1994) 513-530.
36. A. Provetti, Hypothetical reasoning: from situation calculus to event calculus, Computational Intelligence Journal 12 (3) (1996) 478-498.
37. J. Pinto, Temporal reasoning in the situation calculus, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada, 1994.
38. J. Pinto, Occurrences and narratives as constraints in the branching structure of the situation calculus, Manuscript, 1996 (http://lyrcc.ing.puc.cl/jpinto/).
39. J. Pinto, R. Reiter, Temporal reasoning in logic programming: a case for the situation calculus, in: Proc. 10th International Conference in Logic Programming, 1993, pp. 203-221.
40. J. Pinto, R. Reiter, Reasoning about time in the situation calculus, in: Annals of Mathematics and AI 14 (2-4) (1995) 251-268.
41. 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, 1991, pp. 359-380.
42. R. Reiter, Natural actions, concurrency and continuous time in the situation calculus, in: Proc. KR-96, 1996, pp. 2-13.
43. H. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lesperance, F. Lin, R. Scherl, Golog: a logic programming language for dynamic domains, Journal of Logic Programming 31 (1-3) (1997).
44. E. Sandewall, Filter preferential entailment for the logic of action in almost continuous worlds, in: Proc. 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), Detroit, MI, 1989, pp. 894-899.
45. E. Sandewall, Features and Fluents: A Systematic Approach to the Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems, Oxford University Press, 1992.
46. M. Shanahan, A circumscriptive calculus of events, Artificial Intelligence 75 (2) (1995) 249-284.
47. M. Shanahan, Solving the frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Commonsense Law of Inertia, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997.