scholarly journals Towards an Expressive Practical Logical Action Theory

10.29007/2m22 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhail Soutchanski ◽  
Wael Yehia

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.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilan Gu ◽  
Mikhail Soutchanski

We consider a modified version of the situation calculus built using a two-variable fragment of the first-order logic extended with counting quantifiers. We mention several additional groups of axioms that can be introduced to capture taxonomic reasoning. We show that the regression operator in this framework can be defined similarly to regression in Reiter’s version of the situation calculus. Using this new regression operator, we show that the projection and executability problems (the important reasoning tasks in the situation calculus) are decidable in the modified version even if an initial knowledge base is incomplete. We also discuss the complexity of solving the projection problem in this modified language in general. Furthermore, we define description logic based sub-languages of our modified situation calculus. They are based on the description logics ALCO(U) (or ALCQO(U), respectively). We show that in these sub-languages solving the projection problem has better computational complexity than in the general modified situation calculus. We mention possible applications to formalization of Semantic Web services and some connections with reasoning about actions based on description logics.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yilan Gu ◽  
Mikhail Soutchanski

We consider a modified version of the situation calculus built using a two-variable fragment of the first-order logic extended with counting quantifiers. We mention several additional groups of axioms that can be introduced to capture taxonomic reasoning. We show that the regression operator in this framework can be defined similarly to regression in Reiter’s version of the situation calculus. Using this new regression operator, we show that the projection and executability problems (the important reasoning tasks in the situation calculus) are decidable in the modified version even if an initial knowledge base is incomplete. We also discuss the complexity of solving the projection problem in this modified language in general. Furthermore, we define description logic based sub-languages of our modified situation calculus. They are based on the description logics ALCO(U) (or ALCQO(U), respectively). We show that in these sub-languages solving the projection problem has better computational complexity than in the general modified situation calculus. We mention possible applications to formalization of Semantic Web services and some connections with reasoning about actions based on description logics.


2010 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 189-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. J. Varzinczak

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.


Author(s):  
Jens Claßen ◽  
James Delgrande

With the advent of artificial agents in everyday life, it is important that these agents are guided by social norms and moral guidelines. Notions of obligation, permission, and the like have traditionally been studied in the field of Deontic Logic, where deontic assertions generally refer to what an agent should or should not do; that is they refer to actions. In Artificial Intelligence, the Situation Calculus is (arguably) the best known and most studied formalism for reasoning about action and change. In this paper, we integrate these two areas by incorporating deontic notions into Situation Calculus theories. We do this by considering deontic assertions as constraints, expressed as a set of conditionals, which apply to complex actions expressed as GOLOG programs. These constraints induce a ranking of "ideality" over possible future situations. This ranking in turn is used to guide an agent in its planning deliberation, towards a course of action that adheres best to the deontic constraints. We present a formalization that includes a wide class of (dyadic) deontic assertions, lets us distinguish prima facie from all-things-considered obligations, and particularly addresses contrary-to-duty scenarios. We furthermore present results on compiling the deontic constraints directly into the Situation Calculus action theory, so as to obtain an agent that respects the given norms, but works solely based on the standard reasoning and planning techniques.


1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Schwinn

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 237 ◽  
pp. 172-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe De Giacomo ◽  
Yves Lespérance ◽  
Fabio Patrizi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document