Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Reasoning about actions with sensing under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty

Published: 23 January 2009 Publication History

Abstract

We focus on the aspect of sensing in reasoning about actions under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty. We first define the action language E for reasoning about actions with sensing, which has a semantics based on the autoepistemic description logic ALCKNF, and which is given a formal semantics via a system of deterministic transitions between epistemic states. As an important feature, the main computational tasks in E can be done in linear and quadratic time. We then introduce the action language E+ for reasoning about actions with sensing under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty, which is an extension of E by actions with nondeterministic and probabilistic effects, and which is given a formal semantics in a system of deterministic, nondeterministic, and probabilistic transitions between epistemic states. We also define the notion of a belief graph, which represents the belief state of an agent after a sequence of deterministic, nondeterministic, and probabilistic actions, and which compactly represents a set of unnormalized probability distributions. Using belief graphs, we then introduce the notion of a conditional plan and its goodness for reasoning about actions under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty. We formulate the problems of optimal and threshold conditional planning under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty, and show that they are both uncomputable in general. We then give two algorithms for conditional planning in our framework. The first one is always sound, and it is also complete for the special case in which the relevant transitions between epistemic states are cycle-free. The second algorithm is a sound and complete solution to the problem of finite-horizon conditional planning in our framework. Under suitable assumptions, it computes every optimal finite-horizon conditional plan in polynomial time. We also describe an application of our formalism in a robotic-soccer scenario, which underlines its usefulness in realistic applications.

References

[1]
Baader, F., Lutz, C., Milicic, M., Sattler, U., and Wolter, F. 2005. Integrating description logics and action formalisms: First results. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2005). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 572--577.
[2]
Bacchus, F., Halpern, J. Y., and Levesque, H. J. 1995. Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-1995). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1933--1940.
[3]
Bacchus, F., Halpern, J. Y., and Levesque, H. J. 1999. Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus. Artif., Intell. 111, 171--208.
[4]
Baral, C., Tran, N., and Tuan, L.-C. 2002. Reasoning about actions in a probabilistic setting. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2002). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 507--512.
[5]
Berners-Lee, T. 1999. Weaving the Web. Harper, San Francisco, CA.
[6]
Boutilier, C., Reiter, R., and Price, B. 2001. Symbolic dynamic programming for first-order MDPs. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2001). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 690--700.
[7]
Boutilier, C., Reiter, R., Soutchanski, M., and Thrun, S. 2000. Decision-theoretic, high-level agent programming in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2000). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 355--362.
[8]
Condon, A. and Lipton, R. 1989. On the complexity of space bounded interactive proofs. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS-1989). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 462--467.
[9]
Dix, J., Kraus, S., and Subrahmanian, V. S. 2006. Heterogeneous temporal probabilistic agents. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 7, 1, 151--198.
[10]
Dix, J., Nanni, M., and Subrahmanian, V. S. 2000. Probabilistic agent programs. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 1, 2, 208--246.
[11]
Donini, F. M., Nardi, D., and Rosati, R. 2002. Description logics of minimal knowledge and negation as failure. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 3, 2, 1--49.
[12]
Draper, D., Hanks, S., and Weld, D. S. 1994. Probabilistic planning with information gathering and contingent execution. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS-1994). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 31--36.
[13]
Eiter, T., Faber, W., Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., and Polleres, A. 2003. A logic programming approach to knowledge-state planning, II: The DLV<sup>K</sup> system. Artif. Intell. 144, 1-2, 157--211.
[14]
Eiter, T. and Lukasiewicz, T. 2003. Probabilistic reasoning about actions in nonmonotonic causal theories. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2003). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 192--199.
[15]
Eiter, T., Subrahmanian, V. S., and Pick, G. 1999. Heterogeneous active agents, I: Semantics. Artif. Intell. 108, 1--2, 179--255.
[16]
Fensel, D., Wahlster, W., Lieberman, H., and Hendler, J., Eds. 2002. Spinning the Semantic Web: Bringing the World Wide Web to Its Full Potential. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[17]
Finzi, A. and Pirri, F. 2001. Combining probabilities, failures and safety in robot control. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2001). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1331--1336.
[18]
Geffner, H. 2002. Perspectives on artificial intelligence planning. In Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2002). AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1013--1023.
[19]
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1993. Representing action and change by logic programs. J. Logic Program. 17, 301--322.
[20]
Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., and Turner, H. 2004. Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif., Intell. 153, 1--2, 49--104.
[21]
Grosskreutz, H. and Lakemeyer, G. 2001. Belief update in the pGOLOG framework. In Proceedings KI/ÖGAI-2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2174. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 213--228.
[22]
Halpern, J. Y. and Tuttle, M. R. 1993. Knowledge, probability, and adversaries. J. ACM 40, 4, 917--962.
[23]
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., and van Harmelen, F. 2003. From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. J. Web Semantics 1, 1, 7--26.
[24]
Iocchi, L. 1999. Design and Development of Cognitive Robots. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy. Available at www.dis.uniroma1.it/~iocchi/publications.html.
[25]
Iocchi, L., Lukasiewicz, T., Nardi, D., and Rosati, R. 2006. Reasoning about actions with sensing under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty. Tech. Rep. INFSYS RR-1843-03-05, Institut für Informationssysteme, Technische Universität Wien. March.
[26]
Iocchi, L., Nardi, D., and Rosati, R. 2000. Planning with sensing, concurrency, and exogenous events: Logical framework and implementation. In Proceedings KR-2000. Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 678--689.
[27]
Kaelbling, L. P., Littman, M. L., and Cassandra, A. R. 1998. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artif. Intell. 101, 1--2, 99--134.
[28]
Karlsson, L. 2001. Conditional progressive planning under uncertainty. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2001). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 431--438.
[29]
Lang, J., Lin, F., and Marquis, P. 2003. Causal theories of action: A computational core. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2003). Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1073--1078.
[30]
Levesque, H. J. 1996. What is planning in presence of sensing&quest; In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-1996). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1139--1149.
[31]
Lifschitz, V. 1994. Minimal belief and negation as failure. Artif. Intell. 70, 1--2, 53--72.
[32]
Lobo, J., Mendez, G., and Taylor, S. R. 1997. Adding knowledge to the action description language A. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-1997). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 454--459.
[33]
Madani, O., Hanks, S., and Condon, A. 2003. On the undecidability of probabilistic planning and related stochastic optimization problems. Artif. Intell. 147, 1--2, 5--34.
[34]
Mateus, P., Pacheco, A., Pinto, J., Sernadas, A., and Sernadas, C. 2001. Probabilistic situation calculus. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 32, 393--431.
[35]
Motik, B., Horrocks, I., Rosati, R., and Sattler, U. 2006. Can OWL and logic programming live together happily ever after&quest; In Proceedings of the 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC-2006). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4273, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 501--514.
[36]
Motik, B. and Rosati, R. 2007. A faithful integration of description logics with logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2007). 477--482.
[37]
Onder, N. and Pollack, M. E. 1999. Conditional, probabilistic planning: A unifying algorithm and effective search control mechanisms. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-1999). AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 577--584.
[38]
Paz, A. 1971. Introduction to Probabilistic Automata. Academic Press, New York.
[39]
Pirri, F. and Reiter, R. 1999. Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. J. ACM 46, 3, 325--361.
[40]
Poole, D. 1997. The independent choice logic for modelling multip-le agents under uncertainty. Artif. Intell. 94, 1-2, 7--56.
[41]
Poole, D. 2000. Logic, knowledge representation, and Bayesian decision theory. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Computational Logic (CL-2000). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1861. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 70--86.
[42]
Puterman, M. L. 1994. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. Wiley, New York.
[43]
Reiter, R. 2001. Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[44]
Shapiro, S. 2005. Belief change with noisy sensing and introspection. In Proceedings on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action, and Change (NRAC-2005).
[45]
Son, T. C. and Baral, C. 2001. Formalizing sensing actions: A transition function based approach. Artif. Intell. 125, 1--2, 19--91.
[46]
Son, T. C., Tu, P. H., and Baral, C. 2004. Planning with sensing actions and incomplete information using logic programming. In Proceedings LPNMR-2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2923. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 261--274.
[47]
Subrahmanian, V. S. and Ward, C. 1996. A deductive database approach to planning in uncertain environments. In Proceedings LID-1996. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1154. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 83--98.
[48]
W3C. 2004. OWL web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation (10 February 2004). Available at www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/.
[49]
Zhang, D., Chopra, S., and Foo, N. Y. 2002. Consistency of action descriptions. In Proceedings PRICAI-2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science/Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2417. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 70--79.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)An answer set programming-based implementation of epistemic probabilistic event calculusInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2023.109101165(109101)Online publication date: Feb-2024
  • (2020)Probabilistic Reasoning About Epistemic Action NarrativesArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2020.103352(103352)Online publication date: Jun-2020
  • (2019)Survivable Deployments of Optical Sensor Networks against Multiple Failures and Disasters: A SurveySensors10.3390/s1921479019:21(4790)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2019
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Reasoning about actions with sensing under qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computational Logic
    ACM Transactions on Computational Logic  Volume 10, Issue 1
    January 2009
    271 pages
    ISSN:1529-3785
    EISSN:1557-945X
    DOI:10.1145/1459010
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 23 January 2009
    Accepted: 01 July 2007
    Revised: 01 March 2007
    Received: 01 March 2006
    Published in TOCL Volume 10, Issue 1

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Reasoning about actions
    2. action languages
    3. description logics
    4. imprecise probabilities
    5. qualitative and probabilistic uncertainty
    6. sensing

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed

    Funding Sources

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)An answer set programming-based implementation of epistemic probabilistic event calculusInternational Journal of Approximate Reasoning10.1016/j.ijar.2023.109101165(109101)Online publication date: Feb-2024
    • (2020)Probabilistic Reasoning About Epistemic Action NarrativesArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2020.103352(103352)Online publication date: Jun-2020
    • (2019)Survivable Deployments of Optical Sensor Networks against Multiple Failures and Disasters: A SurveySensors10.3390/s1921479019:21(4790)Online publication date: 4-Nov-2019
    • (2019)A probabilistic interval-based event calculus for activity recognitionAnnals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence10.1007/s10472-019-09664-4Online publication date: 7-Aug-2019
    • (2017)Foundations for a Probabilistic Event CalculusLogic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning10.1007/978-3-319-61660-5_7(57-63)Online publication date: 28-Jun-2017
    • (2016)Domain-independent planning for services in uncertain and dynamic environmentsArtificial Intelligence10.1016/j.artint.2016.03.002236:C(30-64)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2016
    • (2016)Causal Basis for Probabilistic Belief Change: Distance vs. ClosenessMulti-disciplinary Trends in Artificial Intelligence10.1007/978-3-319-49397-8_10(112-125)Online publication date: 10-Nov-2016
    • (2015)ALLEGROProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/2832581.2832635(2762-2769)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2015
    • (2015)Probabilistic knowledge-based programsProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/2832415.2832471(1594-1600)Online publication date: 25-Jul-2015
    • (2015)Robot location estimation in the situation calculusJournal of Applied Logic10.1016/j.jal.2015.02.00413:4(397-413)Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media