69,794 research outputs found
Representing First-Order Causal Theories by Logic Programs
Nonmonotonic causal logic, introduced by Norman McCain and Hudson Turner,
became a basis for the semantics of several expressive action languages.
McCain's embedding of definite propositional causal theories into logic
programming paved the way to the use of answer set solvers for answering
queries about actions described in such languages. In this paper we extend this
embedding to nondefinite theories and to first-order causal logic.Comment: 29 pages. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
(TPLP); Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, May, 201
Representing First-Order Causal Theories by Logic Programs
Nonmonotonic causal logic, introduced by McCain and Turner (McCain, N. and Turner, H. 1997. Causal theories of action and change. In Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), Stanford, CA, 460–465) became the basis for the semantics of several expressive action languages. McCain\u27s embedding of definite propositional causal theories into logic programming paved the way to the use of answer set solvers for answering queries about actions described in such languages. In this paper we extend this embedding to nondefinite theories and to the first-order causal logic
Handling Defeasibilities in Action Domains
Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning.
In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because
domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general
inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also
interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a
prioritized logic programming approach to handle defeasibilities in reasoning
about action. In particular, we propose three action languages {\cal AT}^{0},
{\cal AT}^{1} and {\cal AT}^{2} which handle three types of defeasibilities in
action domains named defeasible constraints, defeasible observations and
actions with defeasible and abnormal effects respectively. Each language with a
higher superscript can be viewed as an extension of the language with a lower
superscript. These action languages inherit the simple syntax of {\cal A}
language but their semantics is developed in terms of transition systems where
transition functions are defined based on prioritized logic programs. By
illustrating various examples, we show that our approach eventually provides a
powerful mechanism to handle various defeasibilities in temporal prediction and
postdiction. We also investigate semantic properties of these three action
languages and characterize classes of action domains that present more
desirable solutions in reasoning about action within the underlying action
languages.Comment: 49 pages, 1 figure, to be appeared in journal Theory and Practice
Logic Programmin
Programming in logic without logic programming
In previous work, we proposed a logic-based framework in which computation is
the execution of actions in an attempt to make reactive rules of the form if
antecedent then consequent true in a canonical model of a logic program
determined by an initial state, sequence of events, and the resulting sequence
of subsequent states. In this model-theoretic semantics, reactive rules are the
driving force, and logic programs play only a supporting role.
In the canonical model, states, actions and other events are represented with
timestamps. But in the operational semantics, for the sake of efficiency,
timestamps are omitted and only the current state is maintained. State
transitions are performed reactively by executing actions to make the
consequents of rules true whenever the antecedents become true. This
operational semantics is sound, but incomplete. It cannot make reactive rules
true by preventing their antecedents from becoming true, or by proactively
making their consequents true before their antecedents become true.
In this paper, we characterize the notion of reactive model, and prove that
the operational semantics can generate all and only such models. In order to
focus on the main issues, we omit the logic programming component of the
framework.Comment: Under consideration in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming
(TPLP
- …