Reasoning about action: An argumentation-theoretic approach

Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research

Volumn 24, Issue , 2005, Pages 465-518

  Vo, Quoc Bao ^a   Foo, Norman Y ^b  

^a RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

OPTIMIZATION; PROBABILITY; RESEARCH;

MINIMIZATION POLICY; NON-MONOTONIC SOLUTION; PROPOSITIONAL LOGIC; RAMIFICATION PROBLEMS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 31144455578     PISSN: 10769757     EISSN: 10769757     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1613/jair.1602     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Amsterdam, J. B. (1991). Temporal reasoning and narrative conventions. In Allen, J. F., Fikes, R., & Sandewall, E. (Eds.), KR'91: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 15-21, Cambridge, MA. Morgan Kaufmann.
2. Baker, A. B. (1989). A simple solution to the Yale Shooting problem. In Brachman, R. J., Levesque, H. J., & Reiter, R. (Eds.), KR'89: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 11-20, San Mateo, California. Morgan Kaufmann.
3. Baral, C. (1995). Reasoning about actions: Non-deterministic effects, constraints, and qualification. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
4. Bondarenko, A., Dung, P. M., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1997). An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 93, 63-101.
5. Bracciali, A., & Kakas, A. C. (2004). Frame consistency: computing with causal explanations. In 10th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2004), pp. 79-87.
6. Castilho, M. A., Gasquet, O., & Herzig, A. (1999). Formalizing action and change in modal logic I: The frame problem. Journal of Logic and Computation, 9(5), 701-735.
7. Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A. C., & Michael, L. (2004). Reasoning about actions and change in answer set programming. In International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - LPNMR' 04, pp. 61-73.
8. Doherty, P. (1994). Reasoning about action and change using occlusion. In European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 401-405.
9. Doherty, P., & Kvarnström, J. (1998). Tackling the qualification problem using fluent dependency constraints: Preliminary report. In 5th Workshop on Temporal Representation and Reasoning - TIME, pp. 97-104.
10. Doyle, J. (1979). A truth maintenance system. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 12(3), 231-272.
11. Drakengren, T., & Bjäreland, M. (1999). Reasoning about action in polynomial time. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 115, 1-24.
12. Fikes, R., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 2(3/4), 189-208.
13. Foo, N. Y., Zhang, D., Vo, Q. B., & Peppas, P. (2001). Circumscriptive models and automata. In Thielscher, M., & Williams, M.-A. (Eds.), Workshop on Non-monotonic Reasoning, Action and Change - colocated with IJCAI-01.
14. Gelfond, M., & Lifschitz, V. (1998). Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI, 3(16), 193-210.
15. Ginsberg, M. L., & Smith, D. E. (1988). Reasoning about action I: A possible worlds approach. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 35(2), 165-196.
16. Giunchiglia, E., Kartha, G. N., & Lifschitz, V. (1997). Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 95(2), 409-438.
17. Giunchiglia, E., & Lifschitz, V. (1998). An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 623-630.
18. Green, C. (1969). Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 219-240.
19. Gustafsson, J., & Doherty, P. (1996). Embracing occlusion in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 87-98.
20. Haas, A. R. (1987). The case for domain-specific frame axioms. In The frame problem in artificial intelligence: proc. of 1987 workshop. Morgan Kaufmann.
21. Hanks, S., & McDermott, D. (1987). Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 33(3), 379-412.
22. Jr., C. L. O. (1999). Explanatory update theory: Applications of counterfactual reasoning to causation. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 108(1-2), 125-178.
23. Kakas, A. C., Miller, R., & Toni, F. (1999). An argumentation framework of reasoning about actions and change. In International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - LPNMR' 99, pp. 78-91.
24. Kakas, A. C., Miller, R., & Toni, F. (2000). E-res - a system for reasoning about actions, events and observations. In Baral, C., & Truszczynski, M. (Eds.), International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning, Special Session on System Descriptions and Demonstration - NMR'2000.
25. Kakas, A. C., Miller, R., & Toni, F. (2001). E-res: Reasoning about actions, events and observations. In International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - LPNMR' 01, pp. 254-266.
26. Kautz, H. (1986). The logic of persistence. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
27. Kowalski, R., & Sergot, M. J. (1986). A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4, 67-95.
28. Kowalski, R. (1992). Database updates in the event calculus. Journal of Logic Programming, 12, 121-146.
29. Kushmerick, N. (1996). Cognitivism and situated action: two views on intelligent agency. Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 15(5).
30. Lifschitz, V. (1987). On the semantics of STRIPS. In Georgeff, & Lansky (Eds.), Reasoning about Actions and Plans. Morgan Kauffman, Los Altos.
31. Lin, F. (1995). Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In International Joint Conference, on Artificial Intelligence.
32. Lin, F. (1996). Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 670-676.
33. Lin, F., & Reiter, R. (1994). State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5), 655-678.
34. Lin, F., & Shoham, Y. (1995). Provably correct theories of action. Journal of the ACM, 42(2), 293-320.
35. McCain, N., & Turner, H. (1995). A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
36. McCain, N., & Turner, H. (1997). Causal theories of action and change. In National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 460-465.
37. McCarthy, J. (1977). Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 555-562.
38. McCarthy, J. (1980). Circumscription - a form of non-monotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 13(1-2), 27-39.
39. McCarthy, J. (1986). Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 26(3), 89-116.
40. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Michie, D., & Meltzer, B. (Eds.), Machine Intelligence 4. Edinburgh University Press.
41. McDermott, D. V. (1987). We've been framed: Or why ai is innocent of the frame problem. In Pylyshyn, Z. (Ed.), The Robots Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 113-122. Ablex.
42. McDermott, D. V., & Doyle, J. (1980). Non-monotonic logic I. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 13(1-2), 41-72.
43. Moore, R. C. (1985). Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 25(1), 75-94.
44. Morris, P. H. (1988). The anomalous extension problem in default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 35(3), 383-399.
45. Pednault, E. (1989). ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus. In KR'89: First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 324-332. Morgan Kaufmann.
46. Poole, D. (1988). A logical framework for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 36(1), 27-47.
47. Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 13, 81-132.
48. Reiter, R. (1991). The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Lifschitz, V. (Ed.), AI and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pp. 418-420. Academic Press.
49. Sandewall, E. (1994). Features and Fluents. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
50. Schubert, L. (1990). Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus; an efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In Kyburg, H., Loui, R., & Carlson, G. (Eds.), Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pp. 23-67. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
51. Shanahan, M. (1989). Prediction is deduction but explanation is abduction. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1055-1060.
52. Shanahan, M. (1997). Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets.
53. Shanahan, M. (1999). The ramification problem in the event calculus. In International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 140-146.
54. Shoham, Y. (1987). Reasoning about Change. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
55. Shoham, Y. (1988). Chronological ignorance: Experiments in nonmonotonic temporal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 36, 279-331.
56. Stein, L. A., & Morgenstern, L. (1994). Motivated action theory: a formal theory of causal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 71(1), 1-42.
57. Thielscher, M. (1997). Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 89, 317-364.
58. Thielscher, M. (1999). From situation calculus to fluent calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 111(1-2), 277-299.
59. Thielscher, M. (2001). The qualification problem: A solution to the problem of anomalous models. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 131(1-2), 1-37.
60. Turner, H. (1997). Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: A situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(1-3), 245-298.
61. Vo, Q. B., & Foo, N. Y. (2001). Solving the qualification problem. In Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 519-531.
62. Vo, Q. B., & Foo, N. Y. (2002). Solving the ramification problem: Causal propagation in an argumentation-theoretic approach. In 7th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence - PRICAI2002, pp. 49-59.
63. Zhang, D., & Foo, N. Y. (2002). Interpolation properties of action logic: Lazy-formalization to the frame problem. In Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., & Ianni, G. (Eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, European Conference, JELIA 2002, pp. 357-368.