Domain-Specific Preferences for Causal Reasoning and Planning

Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, KR 2004

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 673-682

  Delgrande, James P ^a   Schaub, Torsten ^b   Tompits, Hans ^c  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

^c VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AM GENERALS; CAUSAL REASONING; DOMAIN SPECIFIC; FLUENTS; MAXIMAL ELEMENTS; PLANNING SYSTEMS; PREFERENCE CHOICE; PREFERENCE ORDER; SOFT CONSTRAINT; SUBGOALS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84880209343     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Bacchus, F., and Kabanza, F. 2000. Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence 116(1-2):123-191.
2. Doherty, P., and Kvarnstrom, J. 1999. TALplanner: An empirical investigation of a temporal logic-based forward chaining planner. In TIME, 47-54.
3. Eiter, T.; Faber, W.; Leone, N.; Pfeifer, G.; and Polleres, A. 2003a. Answer set planning under action costs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19:25-71.
4. K system. Artificial Intelligence 144(1-2):157-211.
5. Eiter, T.; Faber, W.; Leone, N.; Pfeifer, G.; and Polleres, A. 2003c. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: Semantics and complexity. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic. To appear.
6. Fikes, R., and Nilsson, N. 1971. Strips: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2:189-208.
7. Geffner, H., and Pearl, J. 1992. Conditional entailment: Bridging two approaches to default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 53(2-3):209-244.
8. Gelfond, M., and Lifschitz, V. 1998. Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI 3. Available at http://www.ep.liu.se/rs/cis/1998/016/.
9. Gelfond, M., and Son, T. C. 1998. Reasoning with prioritized defaults. In Dix, J.; Pereira, L. M.; and Przymusinski, T. C., eds., Proceedings of the 3th International Workshop on Logic Programming and Knowledge Representation (LPKR-97), volume 1471 of LNAI, 164-223. Berlin: Springer.
10. Giunchiglia, E., and Lifschitz, V. 1998. An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'98), 623-630.
11. Giunchiglia, E.; Lee, J.; Lifschitz, V.; McCain, N.; and Turner, H. 2004. Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1-2):49-104.
12. Giunchiglia, E. 2000. Planning as satisfiability with expressive action languages: Concurrency, constraints and nondeterminism. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'00), 657-666.
13. Haddawy, P., and Hanks, S. 1992. Representations for decision-theoretic planning: Utility functions for deadline goals. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 71-82.
14. Levesque, H.; Pirri, F.; and Reiter, R. 1998. Foundations for the situation calculus. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science 3(18).
15. Liberatore, P. 1997. The complexity of the language A. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 1(1-3):13-38. Available at http://www.ep.liu.se/ej/etai/1997/002/.
16. Lin, F. 2003. Compiling causal theories to successor state axioms and strips-like systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19:279-314.
17. Myers, K., and Lee, T. 1999. Generating qualitatively different plans through metatheoretic biases. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 570-576.
18. Nau, D.; Cao, Y.; Lotem, A.; and Muoz-Avila, H. 1999. Shop: Simple hierarchical ordered planner. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 968-973.
19. Niemelä, I., and Simons, P. 1997. Smodels: An implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In Dix, J.; Furbach, U.; and Nerode, A., eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning, 420-429. Springer-Verlag.
20. Rintanen, J. 1998. Lexicographic priorities in default logic. Artificial Intelligence 106:221-265.
21. Sakama, C., and Inoue, K. 2000. Prioritized logic programming and its application to commonsense reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 123(1-2):185-222.
22. Son, T., and Pontelli, E. 2002. Reasoning about actions in prioritized default theory. In Flesca, S.; Greco, S.; Leone, N.; and G.Ianni., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA'02), volume 2424 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 369-381. Springer Verlag.
23. Son, T., and Pontelli, E. 2004. Planning with preferences in logic programming. In Lifschitz, V., and Niemelä, I., eds., Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LP-NMR'04), volume 2923 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 247-260. Springer Verlag.
24. Son, T.; Baral, C.; Nam, T.; and McIlraith, S. 2002. Domain-dependent knowledge in answer set planning. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0207023.
25. Thielscher, M. 1999. From Situation Calculus to Fluent Calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 111(1-2):277-299.
26. Wellman, M., and Doyle, J. 1991. Preferential semantics for goals. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 698-703.
27. Zhang, Y., and Foo, N. 1997. Answer sets for prioritized logic programs. In Maluszynski, J., ed., Proceedings of the International Symposium on Logic Programming (ILPS-97), 69-84. MIT Press.