On Action Theory Change

As historically acknowledged in the Reasoning about Actions and Change community, intuitiveness of a logical domain description cannot be fully automated. Moreover, like any other logical theory, action theories may also evolve, and thus knowledge engineers need revision methods to help in accommodating new incoming information about the behavior of actions in an adequate manner. The present work is about changing action domain descriptions in multimodal logic. Its contribution is threefold: first we revisit the semantics of action theory contraction proposed in previous work, giving more robust operators that express minimal change based on a notion of distance between Kripke-models. Second we give algorithms for syntactical action theory contraction and establish their correctness with respect to our semantics for those action theories that satisfy a principle of modularity investigated in previous work. Since modularity can be ensured for every action theory and, as we show here, needs to be computed at most once during the evolution of a domain description, it does not represent a limitation at all to the method here studied. Finally we state AGM-like postulates for action theory contraction and assess the behavior of our operators with respect to them. Moreover, we also address the revision counterpart of action theory change, showing that it benefits from our semantics for contraction.

Download Full-text

Towards an Expressive Practical Logical Action Theory

10.29007/2m22 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Mikhail Soutchanski ◽

Wael Yehia

Keyword(s):

Description Logic ◽

Action Theory ◽

Broad Class ◽

Situation Calculus ◽

Logical Formula ◽

Local Effects ◽

Seamless Integration ◽

Reasoning About Actions ◽

Projection Problem ◽

Action Theories

In the area of reasoning about actions, one of the key computational problems is the projection problem: to find whether a given logical formula is true afterperforming a sequence of actions. This problem is undecidable in the generalsituation calculus; however, it is decidable in some fragments. We considera fragment P of the situation calculus and Reiter's basic action theories (BAT)such that the projection problem can be reduced to the satisfiability problemin an expressive description logic $ALCO(U)$ that includes nominals ($O$),the universal role ($U$), and constructs from the well-known logic $ALC$. It turns outthat our fragment P is more expressive than previously explored description logicbased fragments of the situation calculus. We explore some of the logical properties of our theories.In particular, we show that the projection problem can be solved using regressionin the case where BATs include a general ``static" TBox, i.e., an ontology that hasno occurrences of fluents. Thus, we propose seamless integration of traditionalontologies with reasoning about actions. We also show that the projectionproblem can be solved using progression if all actions have only local effects onthe fluents, i.e., in P, if one starts with an incomplete initial theory thatcan be transformed into an $ALCO(U)$ concept, then its progression resulting fromexecution of a ground action can still be expressed in the same language. Moreover,we show that for a broad class of incomplete initial theories progression can be computed efficiently.

Download Full-text

On the Semantics of Arbitration

International Journal of Algebra and Computation ◽

10.1142/s0218196797000095 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 07 (02) ◽

pp. 133-160 ◽

Cited By ~ 94

Author(s):

Peter Z. Revesz

Keyword(s):

Model Fitting ◽

Minimal Change ◽

Relative Importance ◽

Logical Theory ◽

New Information ◽

Strict Priority

Revision and update operators add new information to some old information represented by a logical theory. Katsuno and Mendelzon show that both revision and update operators can be characterized as accomplishing a minimal change in the old information to accommodate the new information. Arbitration operators add two or more weighted informations together where the weights indicate the relative importance of the informations rather than a strict priority. This paper shows that arbitration operators can be also characterized as accomplishing a minimal change. The operator of model-fitting is also defined and analyzed in the paper.

Download Full-text

False Connections: Systems and Action Theories in Neofunctionalism and in Jürgen Habermas

Sociological Theory ◽

10.1111/0735-2751.00043 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 75-95 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Thomas Schwinn

Keyword(s):

Action Theory ◽

The Other ◽

Theory Of Action ◽

Jürgen Habermas ◽

Theoretical Terms ◽

Jurgen Habermas ◽

Theoretical Approaches ◽

Combination Of Theories ◽

The Status ◽

Action Theories

Recent theoretical discussions have served to bridge the gap separating systems- and action-theoretical approaches; however, the question of their basic compatibility has rarely been raised. This paper takes up two efforts at linking systems and action theory: those of neofunctionalists and those of Jürgen Habermas. Neofunctionalists start from the inadequacies of systems functionalism and seek to open it to the theory of action. Habermas, on the other hand, seeks to overcome the limits of the theory of action by widening its scope in systems-theoretical terms. Successful synthesis eludes both efforts: either the status of voluntaristic aspects is so enhanced that the systemic whole and its functional imperatives practically vanish, or too much emphasis is placed on the systemic aspect, reducing actors to the mere executing agents of systemic needs. The combination of theories of structure and action provides a way out of this dilemma.

Download Full-text

Dynamics of knowledge in DeLP through Argument Theory Change

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming ◽

10.1017/s1471068411000603 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 13 (6) ◽

pp. 893-957 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

MARTÍN O. MOGUILLANSKY ◽

NICOLÁS D. ROTSTEIN ◽

MARCELO A. FALAPPA ◽

ALEJANDRO J. GARCÍA ◽

GUILLERMO R. SIMARI

Keyword(s):

Theory Change ◽

Knowledge Bases ◽

Minimal Change ◽

Logic Programs ◽

Rule Based ◽

Defeasible Logic ◽

Abstract Argumentation ◽

Revision Operations ◽

Argumentation Systems ◽

Article Abstract

AbstractThis article is devoted to the study of methods to change defeasible logic programs (de.l.p.s) which are the knowledge bases used by the Defeasible Logic Programming (DeLP) interpreter. DeLP is an argumentation formalism that allows to reason over potentially inconsistent de.l.p.s. Argument Theory Change (ATC) studies certain aspects of belief revision in order to make them suitable for abstract argumentation systems. In this article, abstract arguments are rendered concrete by using the particular rule-based defeasible logic adopted by DeLP. The objective of our proposal is to define prioritized argument revision operators à la ATC for de.l.p.s, in such a way that the newly inserted argument ends up undefeated after the revision, thus warranting its conclusion. In order to ensure this warrant, the de.l.p. has to be changed in concordance with a minimal change principle. To this end, we discuss different minimal change criteria that could be adopted. Finally, an algorithm is presented, implementing the argument revision operations.

Download Full-text

Does Your Implementation Fit Your Theory of Change?

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation ◽

10.3138/cjpe.53008 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 33 (3) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Steve Montague

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Action Theory ◽

Case Analysis ◽

Policy Decision ◽

Theory Of Change ◽

Use Case ◽

Case Examples ◽

Policy Decision Making ◽

Analysis Of Change ◽

Action Theories

A brief review of evaluation findings in almost any given domain typically reveals that most and sometimes all major findings deal with the implementation of initiatives—also known as action theory. Moreover, the findings regarding implementation frequently allude to mismatches between the type or level of implementation occurring and the fundamental nature of the initiative. Case examples will illustrate that while all permutations and combinations of change and action theories cannot be summarily assessed, one can use case analysis to draw some lessons to suggest that some combinations are essentially toxic, while others provide at least a reasonable chance of success. The implication is that further systematic coding and analysis of change theories, action theories, and in particular their combinations in programs could produce useful insights for both evaluation and public-policy decision making.

Download Full-text

Speech Acts and Space(s): Language Pragmatics and the Discursive Constitution of the Social

Environment and Planning A Economy and Space ◽

10.1068/a34198 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 34 (8) ◽

pp. 1355-1372 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Wolfgang Zierhofer

Keyword(s):

Speech Acts ◽

Action Theory ◽

Human Geography ◽

Physical Conditions ◽

The Social ◽

Action Theories

By referring to language-pragmatic versions of action theory, I attempt in this paper to introduce a perspective which overcomes a series of modernistic legacies of earlier action theories in human geography. Such a development allows a nonessentialist stance while preserving the conceptual richness and consistency of action theory. The concept of speech acts will be interpreted as a blueprint for the analysis of interactions in general—not only human communications but also those involving nonhuman entities and physical conditions—and is a perspective that is particularly attractive for human geography. However, one of the consequences is that the notion of space and its role for the identity of the discipline need to be reconsidered.

Download Full-text