Reasoning about action and change: Defeasible observations and actions with abnormal effects

Jabłonowski, Janusz; Łukaszewicz, Witold; Madalinska-Bugaj, Ewa

doi:10.1007/3-540-61708-6_55

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…within the framework of AT 0 we cannot reason from the current state to the past under some observations. It has been realized that observations on any intermediate states (including the final state) play an important role in temporal postdiction (Jab lonowski et al, 1996). Here, an observation is viewed as an agent's beliefs about the domain that is either obtained from the outside world or from the agent's own assumption.…”

Section: At 1 : Combining Defeasible Observations Into Action Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Probably Jab lonowski, Lukaszewicz and Madalińska-Bugaj's work (Jab lonowski et al, 1996) was one of the early efforts on handling the problem of defeasible observations and actions with abnormal effects. Following Dijkstra's semantics on programming languages (W. Lukaszewcz and Madalińsks-Bugaj, 1995), they proposed an action theory in which both defeasible observations and actions with abnormal effects were expressible.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, there are other types of defeasible information, such as defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects, that also significantly influence temporal prediction and postdiction. Although the problem of defeasibilities has been investigated by some researchers recently (Baral and Lobo, 1997;Geffner, 1997;Jab lonowski et al, 1996;Zhang, 1999), none of the previous proposals is completely satisfactory in terms of representing and handling different types of defeasibilities in temporal reasoning (we will discuss this issue in section 7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Handling defeasibilities in action domains

Zhang¹

2003

Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: At 1 : Combining Defeasible Observations Into Action Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation