Nonmonotonic causal theories

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 153, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 49-104

  Giunchiglia, Enrico ^a   Lee, Joohyung ^b   Lifschitz, Vladimir ^b   McCain, Norman ^b   Turner, Hudson ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GENOA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA DULUTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Action languages; Causality; Commonsense reasoning; Knowledge representation; Nonmonotonic reasoning; Reasoning about actions

Indexed keywords

BOOLEAN ALGEBRA; FORMAL LANGUAGES; PROBLEM SOLVING; SET THEORY; SYNTACTICS;

ACTION LANGUAGES; CAUSALITY; COMMONSENSE REASONING; NONMONOTONIC REASONING; REASONING ABOUT ACTIONS;

KNOWLEDGE REPRESENTATION;

EID: 1642484543     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2002.12.001     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Akman V., Erdogan S.T., Lee J., Lifschitz V., Turner H. Representing the Zoo World and the Traffic World in the language of the Causal Calculator. Artificial Intelligence. 2004;. this issue 10.1016/j.artint.2003.08.002.
2. Baral C., Gelfond M. Reasoning about effects of concurrent actions. J. Logic Programming. 31:1997;85-117.
3. Campbell J., Lifschitz V. Reinforcing a claim in commonsense reasoning. Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symposium on Logical Formalizations of Commonsense Reasoning. 2003; http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/papers/sams.ps.
4. Clark K. Negation as failure. Gallaire H., Minker J. Logic and Data Bases. 1978;293-322 Plenum Press, New York.
5. Davidson D. The logical form of action sentences. The Logic of Decision and Action. 1967;81-120 University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Dimopoulos Y., Nebel B., Koehler J. Encoding planning problems in non-monotonic logic programs. Steel S., Alami R. Proc. European Conf. on Planning. 1997;169-181 Springer, Berlin.
7. Doherty P., Gustafsson J., Karlsson L., Kvarnström J. TAL: Temporal action logics language specification and tutorial. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science. 3:(015):1998; http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1998/015/.
8. Eiter T., Gottlob G. Complexity results for disjunctive logic programming and application to nonmonotonic logics. Miller D. Proc. ILPS-93. 1993;266-278.
9. Fikes R., Nilsson N. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence. 2:(3-4):1971;189-208.
10. Geffner H. Causal theories for nonmonotonic reasoning. Proc. AAAI-90, Boston, MA. 1990;524-530 AAAI Press.
11. Gelfond M., Lifschitz V. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gen. Comput. 9:1991;365-385.
12. Gelfond M., Lifschitz V. Representing action and change by logic programs. J. Logic Programming. 17:1993;301-322.
13. Giunchiglia E., Lifschitz V. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. Proc. AAAI-98, Madison, WI. 1998;623-630 AAAI Press.
14. Hanks S., McDermott D. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence. 33:(3):1987;379-412.
15. Kautz H., Selman B. Planning as satisfiability. Proc. ECAI-92. 1992;359-363.
16. Kowalski R., Sergot M. A logic-based calculus of events. New Gen. Comput. 4:1986;67-95.
17. Kvarnström J., Doherty P. Talplanner: A temporal logic based forward chaining planner. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence. 30:2001;119-169.
18. Lifschitz V., McCain N., Remolina E., Tacchella A. Getting to the airport: The oldest planning problem in AI. Minker J. Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence. 2000;147-165 Kluwer, Dordrecht.
19. Lifschitz V. Missionaries and cannibals in the Causal Calculator. Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. Seventh Internat. Conf., Breckenridge, CO. 2000;85-96.
20. Lifschitz V. Answer set programming and plan generation. Artificial Intelligence. 138:2002;39-54.
21. Lin F. Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. Proc. IJCAI-95, Montreal, Quebec. 1995;1985-1991.
22. Lin F. Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions. Proc. AAAI-96, Portland, OR. 1996;670-676.
23. Marek V., Truszczyński M. Stable models and an alternative logic programming paradigm. The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25-Year Perspective. 1999;375-398 Springer, Berlin.
24. McCain N., Turner H. Causal theories of action and change. Proc. AAAI-97, Providence, RI. 1997;460-465.
25. N. McCain, Causality in Commonsense Reasoning about Actions, PhD Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1997, ftp://ftp.cs.utexas.edu/pub/techreports/tr97-25.ps.Z.
26. McCarthy J., Hayes P. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Meltzer B., Michie D. Machine Intelligence, vol. 4. 1969;463-502 Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
27. McCarthy J. Programs with common sense. Proc. Teddington Conf. on the Mechanization of Thought Processes. 1959;75-91 Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.
28. McCarthy J. Circumscription - A form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence. 13:1980;27-39. 171-172. Reproduced in [30].
29. McCarthy J. Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence. 26(3):1986;89-116. Reproduced in [30].
30. McCarthy J. Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy. 1990;Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
31. McCarthy J. Elaboration tolerance. Proc. Common Sense 98, London. 1998; http://www.formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elaboration.html.
32. Niemelä I. Logic programs with stable model semantics as a constraint programming paradigm. Ann. Math. Artificial Intelligence. 25:1999;241-273.
33. Pednault E. Formulating multi-agent, dynamic world problems in the classical planning framework. Georgeff M., Lansky A. Reasoning about Actions and Plans. 1987;47-82 Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
34. Pednault E. ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. Brachman R., Levesque H., Reiter R. Proc. First Internat. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, ON. 1989;324-332.
35. Pednault E. ADL and the state-transition model of action. J. Logic Comput. 4:1994;467-512.
36. Reiter R. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence. 13:1980;81-132.
37. 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 John McCarthy. 1991;359-380 Academic Press, New York.
38. Sakama C., Inoue K. Relating disjunctive logic programs to default theories. Pereira L.M., Nerode A. Logic Programming and Non-monotonic Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second Internat. Workshop. 1993;166-282.
39. Sandewall E. Features and Fluents, vol. 1. 1994;Oxford University Press, Oxford.
40. Shanahan M. Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia. 1997;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
41. Thielscher M. Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence. 89:(1-2):1997;317-364.
42. Turner H. Splitting a default theory. Proc. AAAI-96, Portland, OR. 1996;645-651.
43. Turner H. Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: A situation calculus approach. J. Logic Programming. 31:1997;245-298.
44. Turner H. A logic of universal causation. Artificial Intelligence. 113:1999;87-123.