Consistency of action descriptions

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 2417, Issue , 2002, Pages 70-79

  Zhang, Dongmo ^a   Chopra, Samir ^b   Foo, Norman Y ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATIONS;

ACTION DESCRIPTIONS; ACTION THEORY; LEVELS OF CONSISTENCY; META-THEORY; NORMAL FORM; REASONING ABOUT ACTIONS; SATISFIABILITY; SITUATION CALCULUS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84947938925     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-45683-x_10     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. M. A. Castilho, O. Gasquet, and A. Herzig, Formalizing action and change in modal logic i: the frame problem. Journal of Logic and Computations, 9:701-735, 1999.
2. M. Denecker, D. T. Dupre, and K. Van Belleghem, An inductive definition approach to ramifications, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, vol 2, 1998.
3. R. Fikes and N. Nilsson, Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 608-620.William Kaufmann, 1971.
4. N. Foo and D. Zhang, Dealing with the ramification problem in the extended propositional dynamic logic. in F.Wolter, H.Wansing, M. de Rijke, and M. Zakharyaschev eds, Advances in Modal Logic, Volume 3, CSLI Publications, 2001.
5. N. Foo and D. Zhang, Lazy-formalization to the frame problem, manuscript.
6. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Action language. Electronic Transactions on AI, 16(3), 1998.
7. M. L. Ginsberg and D. E. Smith, Reasoning about action I: a possible worlds approach, in: Artificial Intelligence, 35(1988), 165-195.
8. R. Goldblatt, Logics of Time and Computation. Stanford University Press, 1987.
9. S. Hanks and D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33(3):379-412, 1987.
10. G. N. Kartha, Soundness and completeness theories for three formalizations of action. In: IJCAI’93, 724-729, 1993.
11. V. Lifschitz, Frames in the space of situations. Artificial Intelligence, 46:365-376, 1990.
12. V. Lifschitz, Towards a metatheory of action. In: KR’91, 376-386, 1991.
13. V. Lifschitz, Situation calculus and causal logic. In: KR-98, 536-546, 1998.
14. F. Lin and R. Reiter, State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):655–677, 1994.
15. F. Lin andY. Shoham, Provably correct theories of action, J. ACM 42(2):293-320, 1995.
16. F. Lin, Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In: IJCAI-95, 1985-1991, 1995.
17. J. McCarthy and P. J. Hayes, Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, in: B. Meltzer and D. Michie, eds., Machine Intelligence 4, Edingburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 463-502, 1969.
18. F. Pirri and R. Reiter, Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. Journal of ACM, 3(46):325–361, 1999.
19. H. Prendinger and G. Schurz, Reasoning about action and change:A dynamic logic approach. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 5:209–245, 1996.
20. R. Reiter, The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In V. Lifschit, editor, Artificial Intelligence and the Mathematical Theory of Computation, Academic Press, 359–380, 1991.
21. E. Sandewall, Features and Fluents. Oxford University Press, 1994.
22. Murray Shanahan, Solving the Frame Problem: a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia. MIT Press, 1997.
23. M. Thielscher, Ramification and causality, Artificial Intelligence, 89:317–364, 1997.
24. D. Zhang and N. Foo, EPDL: a logic for causal reasoning, Proceedings of IJCAI-01, 131-136, 2001.