Metatheory of actions: Beyond consistency

Artificial Intelligence

Volumn 171, Issue 16-17, 2007, Pages 951-984

  Herzig, Andreas ^a   Varzinczak, Ivan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

Author keywords

Action theory; Modularity; Ramifications; Reasoning about actions

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; FORMAL LOGIC;

ACTION THEORY; MODULARITY; RAMIFICATIONS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 35448932418     PISSN: 00043702     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.artint.2007.04.013     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. *AI'95). Lecture Notes Artif. Intell. vol. 992 (1995), Springer-Verlag 103-114
2. F. Lin, Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions, in: Mellish [62], pp. 1985-1991
3. N. McCain, H. Turner, A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications, in: Mellish [62], pp. 1978-1984
4. M. Thielscher, Computing ramifications by postprocessing, in: Mellish [62], pp. 1994-2000
5. Castilho M., Gasquet O., and Herzig A. Formalizing action and change in modal logic I: The frame problem. Journal of Logic and Computation 9 5 (1999) 701-735
6. Zhang D., and Foo N. EPDL: A logic for causal reasoning. In: Nebel B. (Ed). Proc. 17th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'01). Seattle (2001), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 131-138
7. Harel D. Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay D., and Günthner F. (Eds). Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. II (1984), D. Reidel, Dordrecht 497-604
8. McCarthy J., and Hayes P. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer B., and Mitchie D. (Eds). Machine Intelligence, vol. 4 (1969), Edinburgh University Press 463-502
9. Gelfond M., and Lifschitz V. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming 17 2/3-4 (1993) 301-321
10. Kartha N., and Lifschitz V. Actions with indirect effects (preliminary report). In: Doyle J., Sandewall E., and Torasso P. (Eds). Proc. 4th Intl. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94). Bonn (1994), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 341-350
11. Giunchiglia E., Kartha G., and Lifschitz V. Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence 95 2 (1997) 409-438
12. A. Herzig, I. Varzinczak, Cohesion, coupling and the meta-theory of actions, in: Kaelbling and Saffiotti [60], pp. 442-447
13. Herzig A., and Varzinczak I. A modularity approach for a fragment of ALC. In: Fisher M., van der Hoek W., Konev B., and Lisitsa A. (Eds). Proc. 10th Eur. Conf. on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2006). Lecture Notes Artif. Intell. vol. 4160 (2006), Springer-Verlag 216-228
14. In: Baader F., Calvanese D., McGuinness D., Nardi D., and Patel-Schneider P. (Eds). Description Logic Handbook (2003), Cambridge University Press
15. Herzig A., and Varzinczak I. Domain descriptions should be modular. In: López de Mántaras R., and Saitta L. (Eds). Proc. 16th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'04). Valencia (2004), IOS Press 348-352
16. Harel D., Tiuryn J., and Kozen D. Dynamic Logic (2000), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
17. Kracht M., and Wolter F. Properties of independently axiomatizable bimodal logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 4 (1991) 1469-1485
18. Kracht M., and Wolter F. Simulation and transfer results in modal logic: A survey. Studia Logica 59 (1997) 149-177
19. Popkorn S. First Steps in Modal Logic (1994), Cambridge University Press
20. Blackburn P., de Rijke M., and Venema Y. Modal Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science (2001), Cambridge University Press
21. Fitting M. Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics (1983), D. Reidel, Dordrecht
22. Hanks S., and McDermott D. Default reasoning, nonmonotonic logics, and the frame problem. In: Kehler T., and Rosenschein S. (Eds). Proc. 5th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'86). Philadelphia (1986), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 328-333
23. M. Castilho, A. Herzig, I. Varzinczak, It depends on the context! a decidable logic of actions and plans based on a ternary dependence relation, in: S. Benferhat, E. Giunchiglia (Eds.), Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning (NMR'02), Toulouse, 2002, pp. 343-348
24. McCarthy J. Epistemological problems of artificial intelligence. In: Sridharan N. (Ed). Proc. 5th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'77). Cambridge, MA (1977), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 1038-1044
25. Ginsberg M., and Smith D. Reasoning about actions II: The qualification problem. Artificial Intelligence 35 3 (1988) 311-342
26. Schubert L. Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In: Kyberg H., Loui R., and Carlson G. (Eds). Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning (1990), Kluwer Academic Publishers 23-67
27. Doherty P., Łukaszewicz W., and Szałas A. Explaining explanation closure. Proc. 9th Intl. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems. Zakopane, Poland. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. vol. 1079 (1996), Springer-Verlag
28. J. Finger, Exploiting constraints in design synthesis, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, 1987
29. Demolombe R., Herzig A., and Varzinczak I. Regression in modal logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics (JANCL) 13 2 (2003) 165-185
30. Reiter R. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In: Lifschitz V. (Ed). Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy (1991), Academic Press, San Diego 359-380
31. I. Varzinczak, What is a good domain description? Evaluating and revising action theories in dynamic logic, Ph.D. thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, 2006
32. Reiter R. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems (2001), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
33. Castilho M., Gasquet O., and Herzig A. A dependence-based framework for actions with indeterminate and indirect effects. Tech. Rep. RT-98-04-R, Institut de recherche en informatique de Toulouse (IRIT), Université Paul Sabatier (February 1998). http://www.irit.fr/LILaC/
34. C. Schwind, Causality in action theories, Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science 4 (4)
35. Marquis P. Consequence finding algorithms. In: Gabbay D., and Smets P. (Eds). Algorithms for Defensible and Uncertain Reasoning. S. Moral, J. Kohlas (Eds.), Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems vol. 5 (2000), Kluwer Academic Publishers 41-145 Chapter 2
36. Inoue K. Linear resolution for consequence finding. Artificial Intelligence 56 2-3 (1992) 301-353
37. Herzig A., and Varzinczak I. On the modularity of theories. In: Schmidt R., Pratt-Hartmann I., Reynolds M., and Wansing H. (Eds). Advances in Modal Logic, vol. 5 (2005), King's College Publications 93-109. http://www.aiml.net/volumes/volume5 selected papers of AiML 2004, also available at
38. F. Lin, Embracing causality in specifying the indeterminate effects of actions, in: Shrobe and Senator [61], pp. 670-676
39. Thielscher M. Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence 89 1-2 (1997) 317-364
40. Lifschitz V., and Ren W. Towards a modular action description language. Proc. 21st Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2006). Boston (2006), AAAI Press/MIT Press
41. Pirri F., and Reiter R. Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. Journal of the ACM 46 3 (1999) 325-361
42. Amir E. (De)composition of situation calculus theories. Proc. 17th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'2000). Austin (2000), AAAI Press/MIT Press 456-463
43. Lin F., and Reiter R. State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation 4 5 (1994) 655-678
44. McIlraith S. Integrating actions and state constraints: A closed-form solution to the ramification problem (sometimes). Artificial Intelligence 116 1-2 (2000) 87-121
45. Sommerville I. Software Engineering (1985), Addison Wesley
46. Pressman R. Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach (1992), McGraw-Hill
47. Zhang D., Chopra S., and Foo N. Consistency of action descriptions. In: Ishizuka M., and Sattar A. (Eds). Proc. 7th Pacific Rim Intl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. Lecture Notes Comput. Sci. vol. 2417 (2002), Springer-Verlag 70-79
48. Lang J., Lin F., and Marquis P. Causal theories of action-A computational core. In: Sorge V., Colton S., Fisher M., and Gow J. (Eds). Proc. 18th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'03). Acapulco (2003), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 1073-1078
49. L. Cholvy, Checking regulation consistency by using SOL-resolution, in: Proc. 7th Intl. Conf. on AI and Law, Oslo, 1999, pp. 73-79
50. Giunchiglia E., Lee J., Lifschitz V., McCain N., and Turner H. Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153 1-2 (2004) 49-104
51. R. Li, L. Pereira, What is believed is what is explained, in: Shrobe and Senator [61], pp. 550-555
52. P. Liberatore, A framework for belief update, in: Proc. 7th Eur. Conf. on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'2000), 2000, pp. 361-375
53. T. Eiter, E. Erdem, M. Fink, J. Senko, Updating action domain descriptions, in: Kaelbling and Saffiotti [60], pp. 418-423
54. Herzig A., Perrussel L., and Varzinczak I. Elaborating domain descriptions. In: Brewka G., Coradeschi S., Perini A., and Traverso P. (Eds). Proc. 17th Eur. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'06). Riva del Garda (2006), IOS Press 397-401
55. Garson J. Modularity and relevant logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 30 2 (1989) 207-223
56. Cuenca Grau B., Parsia B., Sirin E., and Kalyanpur A. Modularity and web ontologies. In: Doherty P., Mylopoulos J., and Welty C. (Eds). Proc. 10th Intl. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'2006). Lake District (2006), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 198-208
57. Kakas A., Michael L., and Miller R. Modular-E: An elaboration tolerant approach to the ramification and qualification problems. In: Baral C., Greco G., Leone N., and Terracina G. (Eds). Proc. 8th Intl. Conf. Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Diamante (2005), Springer-Verlag 211-226
58. Gustafsson J., and Doherty P. Embracing occlusion in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In: Aiello L., Doyle J., and Shapiro S. (Eds). Proc. 5th Intl. Conf. on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96). Cambridge, MA (1996), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers 87-98
59. P. Marquis, Knowledge compilation using theory prime implicates, in: Mellish [62], pp. 837-843
60. In: Kaelbling L., and Saffiotti A. (Eds). Proc. 19th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'05). Edinburgh (2005), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
61. In: Shrobe H., and Senator T. (Eds). Proc. 13th Natl. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'96). Portland (1996), AAAI Press/MIT Press
62. In: Mellish C. (Ed). Proc. 14th Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95). Montreal (1995), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers