Integrating actions and state constraints: a closed-form solution to the ramification problem (sometimes)

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 116, Issue 1-2, 2000, Pages 87-121

  McIlraith, Sheila A ^a  

^a Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATIONS; CONSTRAINT THEORY; INTEGRATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PLANNING; PROBLEM SOLVING;

FRAME PROBLEM; MODEL BASED REASONING; QUALIFICATION PROBLEM; RAMIFICATION PROBLEM; STATE CONSTRAINTS;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 0033907489     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0004-3702(99)00087-9     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Costello T. Solutions to the ramification problem. Working Papers for the Second Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning. 1993;32-39.
2. de Kleer J., Brown J.S. A qualitative physics based on confluences. Artificial Intelligence. 24:1984;7-83.
3. Denecker M., Theseider Dupré D., Van Belleghem K. An inductive definition approach to ramifications. Electron. Trans. Artificial Intelligence. 3:(7):1998.
4. Elkan C. Reasoning about action in first-order logic. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (CSCSI-92), Vancouver, BC. 1992;221-227.
5. Finger J. Exploiting constraints in design synthesis. Ph.D. Thesis:1986;Department of Computer Science, Stanford University.
6. Ginsberg M.L., Smith D.E. Reasoning about actions I: A possible worlds approach. Artificial Intelligence. 35:(2):1988;165-195.
7. Giunchiglia E. Determining ramifications in the situation calculus. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), Cambridge, MA. 1996;76-86.
8. Gustafsson J., Doherty P. Embracing occlusion in specifying the indirect effects of actions. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), Cambridge, MA. 1996;87-98.
9. Kartha G.N., Lifschitz V. A simple formalization of actions using circumscription. Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec. 1995;1970-1975.
10. Levesque H., Reiter R., Lespérance Y., Lin F., Scherl R. GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. J. Logic Programming. 31:1997;59-84.
11. Levi G. Advances in Logic Programming Theory. 1994;Oxford Science Publications, Oxford.
12. Lifschitz V. Computing circumscription. Proc. IJCAI-85, Los Angeles, CA. 1985;121-127.
13. Lifschitz V. Circumscription. Gabbay D.M., Hogger C.J., Robinson J.A. The Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Vol. 3. 1994;298-352 Oxford University Press, Oxford.
14. Lin F. Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec. 1995;1985-1991.
15. Lin F., Reiter R. State constraints revisited. J. Logic Comput. (Special Issue on Action and Processes). 4:(5):1994;655-678.
16. Lin F., Shoham Y. Provably correct theories of action. J. ACM. 42:(2):1995;293-320.
17. Lloyd J.W. Foundations of Logic Programming. 2nd edn. 1987;Springer, Berlin.
18. McCain N., Turner H. A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec. 1995;1978-1984.
19. McCarthy J. Programs with common sense. Minsky M. Semantic Information Processing. 1968;403-418 MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
20. McCarthy J. Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. Proc. IJCAI-77, Cambridge, MA. 1977;1038-1044.
21. McCarthy J. Mathematical logic in artificial intelligence. Daedalus, Winter. 1988;297-311.
22. McCarthy J., Hayes P. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Meltzer B., Michie D. Machine Intelligence 4. 1969;463-502 Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
23. McIlraith S. A closed-form solution to the ramification problem (sometimes). Proceedings of the Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change, IJCAI-97, Nagoya, Japan. 1997;103-126.
24. McIlraith S. Representing actions and state constraints in model-based diagnosis. Proc. AAAI-97, Providence, RI. 1997;43-49.
25. McIlraith S. Towards a formal account of diagnostic problem solving. Ph.D. Thesis:1997;Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
26. McIlraith S. Explanatory diagnosis: Conjecturing actions to explain observations. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-98), Trento, Italy. 1998;167-177.
27. Mylopolous J., Kramer B. Developing an expert system technology for industrial process control: An experience report. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (CSCSI-96), Toronto, Ont. 1996;172-186.
28. Pednault E. Synthesizing plans that contain actions with context-dependent effects. Comput. Intelligence. 4:1988;356-372.
29. Pinto J. Temporal reasoning in the situation calculus. Ph.D. Thesis:1994;Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario. Also published as Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto (KRR-TR-94-1), February 1994.
30. Pinto J. Compiling ramification constraints into effect axioms. Comput. Intelligence. 15:(3):1999;280-307.
31. Przymusinski T.C. On the declarative and procedural semantics of logic programs. J. Automat. Reason. 5:1989;167-205.
32. R. Reiter, Knowledge in action: logical foundations for describing and implementing dynamical systems, In preparation. Draft available at http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~cogrobo/.
33. Reiter R. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. Lifschitz V. Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of J. McCarthy. 1991;359-380 Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
34. Reiter R. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A soundness and completeness result, with an application to database updates. Proceedings First International Conference on AI Planning Systems, College Park, MA. 1992.
35. Reiter R. Natural actions, concurrency and continuous time in the situation calculus. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), Cambridge, MA. 1996;2-13.
36. Sandewall E. Filter preferential entailment for the logic of action in almost continuous worlds. Proc. IJCAI-89, Detroit, MI. 1989;894-899.
37. Sandewall E. Assessment of ramification methods that use static domain constraints. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-96), Cambridge, MA. 1996;99-110.
38. Scherl R., Levesque H. The frame problem and knowledge producing actions. Proc. AAAI-93, Washington, DC. 1993;689-695.
39. Schubert L.K. Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. Kyberg H.E., Loui R.P., Carlson G.N. Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning. 1990;23-67 Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.
40. Shanahan M. Solving the Frame Problem. 1997;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
41. Ternovskaia E. Inductive definability and the situation calculus. Freitag B., Decker H., Kifer M., Voronkov A. Transactions and Change in Logic Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 1472:1998;Springer, Berlin.
42. Thielscher M. Qualified ramifications. Proc. AAAI-97, Providence, RI. 1997;466-471.
43. Waldinger R. Achieving several goals simultaneously. Elcock E., Michie D. Machine Intelligence 8. 1977;94-136 Ellis Horwood, Edinburgh.