Incremental plan recognition in an agent programming framework

AAAI Workshop - Technical Report

Volumn WS-07-09, Issue , 2007, Pages 52-59

  Goultiaeva, Alexandra ^a   Lespérance, Yves ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGENT PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; AGENT-PROGRAMMING; COGNITIVE AGENT PROGRAMMING; FORMAL MODELING; INTENT RECOGNITION; PLAN RECOGNITION; PLAN SPECIFICATION; SITUATION CALCULUS; TECHNICAL REPORTS; TRANSITION SYSTEMS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; LINGUISTICS; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

BASIC (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE);

EID: 51849149849     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Avrahami-Zilberbrand, D., and Kaminka, G. A. 2005. Fast and complete symbolic plan recognition. In Proc. of IJCAI-05.
2. Avrahami-Zilberbrand, D., and Kaminka, G. A. 2006. Hybrid symbolic-probabilistic plan recognition: Initial stepsd. In Kaminka, G.; Pynadath, D.; and Geib, C., eds., Modeling Others from Observations: Papers from the 2006 AAAI Workshop.
3. Bui, H. H. 2003. A general model for online probabilistic plan recognition. In Proc. of IJCAI'03, 1309-1318.
4. Carberry, S. 2001. Techniques for plan recognition. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11(31-48).
5. De Giacomo, G., and Levesque, H. J. 1999. An incremental interpreter for high-level programs with sensing. In Levesque, H. J., and Pirri, F., eds., Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents. Springer-Verlag. 86-102.
6. De Giacomo, G.; Lespérance, Y.; and Levesque, H. J. 2000. ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 121:109-169.
7. Demolombe, R., and Fernandez, A. M. O. 2005. Intention recognition in the Situation Calculus and Probability Theory frameworks. In Computational Logic in Multi Agent Systems, 358-372.
8. Demolombe, R., and Hamon, E. 2002. What does it mean that an agent is performing a typical procedure? A formal definition in the Situation Calculus. In Castelfranci, C., and Johnson, W. L., eds., Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 905-911. Bologne: ACM Press.
9. Levesque, H.; Reiter, R.; Lesperance, Y.; Lin, F.; and Scheri, R. 1997a. GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31:59-84.
10. Levesque, H. J.; Reiter, R.; Lespérance, Y.; Lin, F.; and Scherl, R. B. 1997b. GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31(59-84).
11. Lin, C., and Hsu, J. 2006. IPARS: Intelligent portable activity recognition system via everyday objects, human movements, and activity duration. In Kaminka, G.; Pynadath, D.; and Geib, C., eds., Modeling Others from Observations: Papers from the 2006 AAAI Workshop.
12. McCarthy, J., and Hayes, P. 1979. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intellig ence. In Meltzer, B., and Michie, D., eds., Machine Intelligence, volume 4. Edinburgh University Press. 463-502.
13. Plotkin, G. 1981. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI-FN-19, Computer Science Dept., Aarhus University, Denmark.
14. 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., Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy. Academic Press. 359-380.
15. Reiter, R. 2001. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press.
16. Sardina, S., and Vassos, S. 2005. The Wumpus World in IndiGolog: a preliminary report. In 6th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action, and Change (at IJCAI-05).