Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Reasoning about actions with loops via Hoare logic

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Plans with loops are more general and compact than classical sequential plans, and gaining increasing attentions in artificial intelligence (AI). While many existing approaches mainly focus on algorithmic issues, few work has been devoted to the semantic foundations on planning with loops. In this paper, we first develop a tailored action language AL K, together with two semantics for handling domains with non-deterministic actions and loops. Then we propose a sound and (relative) complete Hoare-style proof system for efficient plan generation and verification under 0-approximation semantics, which uses the so-called idea offline planning and on-line querying strategy in knowledge compilation, i.e., the agent could generate and store short proofs as many as possible in the spare time, and then perform quick query by constructing a long proof from the stored shorter proofs using compositional rule. We argue that both our semantics and proof system could serve as logical foundations for reasoning about actions with loops.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 1993, 17(2–4): 301–322

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Son T C, Baral C. Formalizing sensing actions—a transition function based approach. Artificial Intelligence, 2001, 125(1–2): 19–91

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Tu P H, Son T C, Baral C. Reasoning and planning with sensing actions, incomplete information, and static laws using answering set programming. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2007, 7(4): 377–450

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Giunchiglia E, Kartha G N, Lifschitz V. Representing action: indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence, 1997, 95(2): 409–438

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Boutilier C, Friedman N. Nondeterministic actions and the frame problem. AAAI Spring Symposium on Extending Theories of Actions, 1995, 39–44

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Giacomo G, Patrizi F, Sardina S. Generalized planning with loops under strong fairness constraints. In: Proceedings of KR’10. 2010, 351–361

    Google Scholar 

  7. Srivastava S, Immerman N, Zilberstein S. Applicability conditions for plans with loops: computability results and algorithms. Artificial Intelligence, 2012, 191: 1–19

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Alford R, Kuter U, Nau D, Goldman R P. Plan aggregation for strong cyclic planning in nondeterministic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 2014, 216: 206–232

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Lespérance Y, Levesque H J, Lin F Z, Scher R Bl. Ability and knowing how in the situation calculus. Studia Logica, 2000, 66(1): 165–186

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Sardina S, De Giacomo G, Lespèrance Y, Levesque H J. On the semantics of deliberation in IndiGolog—from theory to implementation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2004, 41(2–4): 259–299

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Amir E. Planning with nondeterministic actions and sensing. In: Proceedings of AAAI-02 Workshop on Cognitive Robotics. 2002

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ghallab M, Nau D, Traverso P. Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publisher, 2004

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Pontelli E, Son T C, Baral C, Gelfond G. Answer set programming and planning with knowledge and world-altering actions in multiple agent domains. Correct Reasoning, 2012, 7265, 509–526

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Dimopoulos Y, Hashmi M A, Moraitis P. µ-satplan: multi-agent planning as satisfiability. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2010, 29, 54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Otwell C, Remshagen A, Truemper K. An effective QBF solver for planning problems. MSV/AMCS, 2004, 311–316

    Google Scholar 

  16. Turban E, Aronson J E, Liang T P. Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems. 7th Edtion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lin F Z, Shoham Y. Provably correct theories of action. Journal of the ACM, 1995, 42(2): 293–320

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Reiter R. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundation for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. Cambrige, Massachuesstts and London, England: The MIT Press, 2001

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Yoo C, Fitch R, Sukkarieh S. Provably-correct stochastic motion planning with safety constraints. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2013, 981–986

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Quottrup MM, Bak T, Zamanabadi R I. Multi-robot motion planning: a timed automata approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2004, 4417–4422

    Google Scholar 

  21. Baral C, Kreinovich V, Trejo R. Computational complexity of planning and approximate planning in the presence of incompleteness. Artificial Intelligence, 2005, 122(1–2): 241–267

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoare C A R. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Communications of the ACM, 1969, 12(10): 576–580

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Apt K R, de Boer F S, Olderog E. Verification of Sequential and Concurrent Programs. London: Springer-Verlag, 2009

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Sipser M. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. 3rd Edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2012

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Selman B, Kautz H. Knowledge compilation and theory approximation. Journal of the ACM, 1996, 43(2): 193–224

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Cadoli M, Donini F M. A survey on knowledge compilation. AI Communication, 1997, 10(3–4): 137–150

    Google Scholar 

  27. Darwiche A, Marquis P. A knowledge compilation map. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2002, 17(1): 229–264

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Shen Y P, Zhao X S. Proof systems for planning under cautious semantics. Minds and Machines, 2013, 23(1): 5–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shen Y P, Zhao X S. Proof systems for planning under 0-approximation semantics. Science China Information Sciences, 2014, 57, 1–12

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Malinowski G. Many-valued logic. In Goble L ed. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001, 309–335

    Google Scholar 

  31. Priest G. An Introduction to Non-Classical Logic. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Cimatti A, Pistore M, Roveri M, Traverso P. Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking. Artificial Intelligence, 2003, 147(1): 35–84

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Fu J C, Ng V, Bastani F B, Yen I L. Simple and fast strong cyclic planning for fully-observable nondeterministic planning problems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 2011

    Google Scholar 

  34. van Harmelen F, Lifschitz V, Porter B. Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2008

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Apt K R. Ten years of Hoare’s logic: a survey—part I. ACM Transaction on Programming Languages and Systems, 1981, 3(4): 431–483

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Cook S A. Soundness and completeness of an axiom system for program verification. AIAM Journal of Computing, 1987, 7(1): 70–90

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Lobo J, Mendez G, Taylor S R. Knowledge and the action description language A. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 2001, 1(2): 129–184

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Gelfond M. Logic programming and reasoning with incomplete information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1994, 12, 98–116

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang Y. Computational properties of epistemic logic programs. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. 2006, 308–317

    Google Scholar 

  40. Levesque H J. Planning with loops. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-05). 2005, 509–515

    Google Scholar 

  41. Srivastava S, Immerman N, Zilberstein S. A new representation and associated algorithms for generalized planning. Artificial Intelligence, 2011, 175(2): 615–647

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Winner E Z, Veloso M. Loopdistill: learning domain-specific planners from example plans. In: Proceedings of ICAPS-07 Workshopon AI Planning and Learning. 2007

    Google Scholar 

  43. Slonneger K, Kurtz B L. Formal Syntax and Semantics of Programming Languages. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1995

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Lifschitz V. On the semantics of STRIPS. In George M P, Lansky A, eds. Reasoning about Actions and Plans. Los Altos, CA: MorganKaufmann, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  45. Fikes R E, Nilsson N J. STRIPS, a retrospective. Artificial Intelligence, 1993, 59(1–2): 227–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. van der Hoek W. Logical foundation of agent-based computing. In: Luck M et al. eds. Multi-Agent Systems and Applications. New York: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nipkow T. Hoare logics in Isabelle/HOL. In: Schwichtenberg H, Steinbrüggen R, eds. Proof and System-Reliability. Kluwer Academic Publisher, 2002

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 512075, China

    Jiankun He & Xishun Zhao

Authors
  1. Jiankun He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xishun Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xishun Zhao.

Additional information

Jiankun He is currently a PhD student at the Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yatsen University, China. His main research interests include knowledge representation and reasoning, formal semantics and methods in program verification.

Xishun Zhao is a professor at the Institute of Logic and Cognition, Sun Yat-sen University, China. He received his PhD degree in mathematics from Nanjing University, China in 1999. His current research interests include computational complexity in logic and analysis, knowledge representation and reasoning, expressive power and complexity of logic systems.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, J., Zhao, X. Reasoning about actions with loops via Hoare logic. Front. Comput. Sci. 10, 870–888 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-5158-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-016-5158-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation