Incremental Execution of Guarded Theories

ACM Transactions on Computational Logic

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 495-525

  Giacomo, Giuseppe De ^a   Levesque, Hector J ^b  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

agent behavior; Languages; Reasoning about actions; situation calculus; Theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 85017332829     PISSN: 15293785     EISSN: 1557945X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1145/383779.383782     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Apt, K. R. and Bezem, M. 1991. Acyclic programs. New Generation Computing 9, 335-363
2. Apt, K. R. and Pedreschi, D. 1993. Reasoning about termination of pure Prolog programs. Information and Computation 106, 1, 109-157
3. Apt, K. R. and Pellegrini, A. 1994. On the occur-check free Prolog program. ACM Toplas 16, 3, 687-726
4. Baral, C. and Son, T. C. 1997. Approximate reasoning about actions in presence of sensing and incomplete information. In International Logic Programming Symposium (ILSP’ 97), J. Maluszynski, Ed. MIT Press, Port Je erson, NY, 387-401
5. Baral, C., Gelfond, M., and Provetti, A. 1997. Representing actions: Laws, observations and hypotheses. Journal of Logic Programming 31, 210-244
6. Best, E. 1996. Semantics of Sequential and Parallel Programs. Prentice Hall International Series in Computer Science
7. Clark, K. 1978. Negation as failure. In Logic and Data Base, H. Gallaire and J. Minker, Eds. Plenum Press, New York, 292-322
8. De Giacomo, G. and Levesque, H. 1999a. An incremental interpreter for high-level programs with sensing. In Logical Foundation for Cognitive Agents: Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter, H. J. Levesque and F. Pirri, Eds. Springer, Berlin, 86-102
9. De Giacomo, G. and Levesque, H. 1999b. Projection using regression and sensors. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Stockholm, Sweden, 160-165
10. De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., and Levesque, H. 2000. ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 121, 1-2, 109-169
11. De Giacomo, G., Reiter, R., and Soutchanski, M. 1998. Execution monitoring of high-level robot programs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98). 453-465
12. Golden, K., Etzioni, O., and Weld, D. 1996. Planning with execution and incomplete information. Tech. Rep. UW-CSE-96-01-09, Department of Computer Science and Engineering. University of Washington. April
13. Hennessy, M. 1990. The Semantics of Programming Languages. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England
14. Jonsson, P. and Backstrom, C. 1995. Incremental planning. In New Directions in Al Planning: EWSP'95-3rd European Workshop on Planning, M. Ghallab and A. Milani, Eds. lOS Press, Assisi, Italy, 79-80
15. Kowalski, R. A. 1995. Using meta-logic to reconcile reactive with rational agents. In Meta-Logics and Logic Programming, K. R. Apt and F. Turini, Eds. MlT Press, 227-242
16. Kowalski, R. A. and Sadri, F. 1999. From logic programming to multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 3-4, 391-419
17. Kowalski, R. A. and Sergot, M. J. 1986. A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 67-95
18. Lakemeyer, G. 1999. On sensing and off-line interpreting in Golog. in Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents, Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter. Springer, Berlin, 173-187
19. Levesque, H. 1996. What is planning in the presence of sensing? in The Proceedings of the Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-96. American Association for Artificial intelligence, Portland, Oregon, 1139-1146
20. Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lesperance, Y., Lin, F., and Scherl, R. 1997. GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming 31, 59-84
21. Mccarthy, J. and Hayes, P. J. 1969. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463-502
22. Miller, R. and Shanahan, M. 1994. Narratives in the situation calculus. The Journal of Logic and Computation 4, 5, 513-530
23. Nlelson, H. R. and Nlelson, F. 1992. Semantics with Applications: A Formal Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England
24. Plotkin, G. 1981. A structural approach to operational semantics. Tech. Rep. Technical Report DAlMl-FN-19, Computer Science Department Aarhus University Denmark
25. Reiter, R. 1991. The frame problem in the situation calculus: A simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. ln Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, V. Lifschitz, Ed. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 359-380
26. Reiter, R. 2000. Narratives as programs. ln Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (KR2000). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA
27. Shanahan, M. 1999. What sort of computation mediates best between perception and action? ln Logical Fundations for Cognitive Agents: Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter, H. Levesque and F. Pirri, Eds. Springer-Verlag, 352-368
28. Waldlnger, R. 1977. Achieving several goals simultaneously. Machine Intelligence 8, 94-136