×

zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Reactive policies with planning for action languages. (English) Zbl 06658178
Michael, Loizos (ed.) et al., Logics in artificial intelligence. 15th European conference, JELIA 2016, Larnaca, Cyprus, November 9–11, 2016. Proceedings. Cham: Springer (ISBN 978-3-319-48757-1/pbk; 978-3-319-48758-8/ebook). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10021. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, 463-480 (2016).
Summary: Action languages are an important family of formalisms to represent action domains in a declarative manner and to reason about them. For this reason, the behavior of an agent in an environment may be governed by policies which take such action domain descriptions into account. In this paper, we describe a formal semantics for describing policies that express a reactive behavior for an agent, and connect our framework with the representation power of action languages. In this framework, we mitigate the large state spaces by employing the notion of indistinguishability, and combine components that are efficient for describing reactivity such as target establishment and (online) planning. Our representation allows one to analyze the flow of executing the given reactive policy, and lays foundations for verifying properties of policies. Additionally, the flexibility of the representation opens a range of possibilities for designing behaviors.
For the entire collection see [Zbl 1350.68015].

MSC:
68T27 Logic in artificial intelligence
Software:
ActHEX; GOLOG
PDF BibTeX XML Cite
Full Text: DOI
References:
[1] Baader, F., Zarrieß, B.: Verification of Golog programs over description logic actions. In: Fontaine, P., Ringeissen, C., Schmidt, R.A. (eds.) FroCoS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8152, pp. 181–196. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40885-4_12 · Zbl 1398.68568 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40885-4_12
[2] Behnke, G., Höller, D., Biundo, S.: On the complexity of htn plan verification and its implications for plan recognition. In: Proceedings of ICAPS, pp. 25–33 (2015)
[3] Bertoli, P., Cimatti, A., Riveri, M., Traverso, P.: Strong planning under partial observability. Artif. Intell. 170(4), 337–384 (2006) · Zbl 1131.68095 · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2006.01.004
[4] Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., Wooldridge, M.: Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 12(2), 239–256 (2006) · Zbl 05387315 · doi:10.1007/s10458-006-5955-7
[5] Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Montali, M., Patrizi, F.: Verification and synthesis in description logic based dynamic systems. In: Faber, W., Lembo, D. (eds.) RR 2013. LNCS, vol. 7994, pp. 50–64. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-39666-3_5 · Zbl 06251238 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39666-3_5
[6] Cimatti, A., Riveri, M., Traverso, P.: Automatic OBDD-based generation of universal plans in non-deterministic domains. In: Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI, pp. 875–881 (1998)
[7] Cimatti, A., Riveri, M., Traverso, P.: Strong planning in non-deterministic domains via model checking. AIPS 98, 36–43 (1998)
[8] Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. (TOPLAS) 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994) · doi:10.1145/186025.186051
[9] Claßen, J., Lakemeyer, G.: A logic for non-terminating Golog programs. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 589–599 (2008)
[10] De Giacomo, G., Reiter, R., Soutchanski, M.: Execution monitoring of high-level robot programs. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 453–465 (1998)
[11] De Giacomo, G., Ternovskaia, E., Reiter, R.: Non-terminating processes in the situation calculus. In: Working Notes of Robots, Softbots, Immobots: Theories of Action, Planning and Control, AAAI 1997 Workshop (1997)
[12] Dennis, L.A., Fisher, M., Webster, M.P., Bordini, R.H.: Model checking agent programming languages. Autom. Softw. Eng. 19(1), 5–63 (2012) · doi:10.1007/s10515-011-0088-x
[13] Eiter, T., Erdem, E., Faber, W., Senko, J.: A logic-based approach to finding explanations for discrepancies in optimistic plan execution. Fundamenta Informaticae 79(1–2), 25–69 (2007) · Zbl 1124.68106
[14] Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Polleres, A.: A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning: semantics and complexity. ACM Trans. Comput. Log. 5(2), 206–263 (2004). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/976706.976708 · Zbl 1367.68301 · doi:10.1145/976706.976708
[15] Eiter, T., Ianni, G., Schindlauer, R., Tompits, H.: A uniform integration of higher-order reasoning and external evaluations in answer-set programming. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 90–96 (2005)
[16] Fichtner, M., Großmann, A., Thielscher, M.: Intelligent execution monitoring in dynamic environments. Fundamenta Informaticae 57(2–4), 371–392 (2003) · Zbl 1110.68513
[17] Fink, M., Germano, S., Ianni, G., Redl, C., Schüller, P.: ActHEX: implementing HEX programs with action atoms. In: Cabalar, P., Son, T.C. (eds.) LPNMR 2013. LNCS, vol. 8148, pp. 317–322. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_31 · Zbl 06214671 · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40564-8_31
[18] Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. Electron. Trans. AI 3(16), 193–210 (1998)
[19] Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In: Proceedings of AAAI/IAAI, pp. 623–630 (1998)
[20] Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F.: From logic programming towards multi-agent systems. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 25(3–4), 391–419 (1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018934223383 · Zbl 0940.68017 · doi:10.1023/A:1018934223383
[21] Lang, J., Zanuttini, B.: Knowledge-based programs as plans - the complexity of plan verification. In: Proceedings of ECAI, pp. 504–509 (2012) · Zbl 1327.68277
[22] Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R., Lesperance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: GOLOG: a logic programming language for dynamic domains. J. Log. Program. 31(1), 59–83 (1997) · Zbl 0880.68008 · doi:10.1016/S0743-1066(96)00121-5
[23] Lomuscio, A., Michliszyn, J.: Verification of multi-agent systems via predicate abstraction against ATLK specifications. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 662–670 (2016)
[24] Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 473–484 (1991) · Zbl 0765.68194
[25] Son, T.C., Baral, C.: Formalizing sensing actions - a transition function based approach. Artif. Intell. 125(1), 19–91 (2001) · Zbl 0969.68152 · doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(00)00080-1
[26] Soutchanski, M.: High-level robot programming and program execution. In: Proceedings of ICAPS Workshop on Plan Execution (2003)
[27] Turner, H.: Polynomial-length planning spans the polynomial hierarchy. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 111–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45757-7_10 · Zbl 1013.68094 · doi:10.1007/3-540-45757-7_10
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.