Local Perspectives on Actions

Giving an account of agents acting in the world—sensing, planning, communicating, doing—requires a coordinated account of, at least, three different kinds of action: ontic, epistemic, and communicative, which focus, respectively, on fact, knowledge and communication. In this note we are concerned primarily with ontic actions. The motivating example is the STRIPS approach to the frame problem, where actions are restricted to change only specified fluents. We present an algebraic setting for ontic actions modeled as relations describing controlled state change. We start from a standard model that encodes STRIPS updates to address the frame problem in logical terms. This model is a system, in the sense of Resende and Baltag. We describe a structure that introduces a notion of local perspective or experiment. This provides a novel treatment of causal relations (which are closely related to integrity constraints and domain axioms in the AI-planning literature). We show how this local structure arises naturally from the semantic structure of the set of possible states, and suggest that it may also help in modeling agents with different perspectives.

[1]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  Dynamic Logic , 2007, The KeY Approach.

[2]  Murray Shanahan Solving the frame problem - a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia , 1997 .

[3]  Pedro Resende,et al.  Quantales and Observational Semantics , 2000 .

[4]  Alfred Tarski,et al.  Relational selves as self-affirmational resources , 2008 .

[5]  Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh,et al.  The Algebra of Multi-Agent Dynamic Belief Revision , 2006, LCMAS.

[6]  Pierre Marquis,et al.  Complexity Results for Independence and Definability in Propositional Logic , 1998, KR.

[7]  R. Reiter,et al.  Forget It ! , 1994 .

[8]  Victor W. Marek Book review: Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy edited by Vladimir Lifschitz (Ablex, 1990) , 1993, SGAR.

[9]  Patrick Doherty,et al.  The PMA and relativizing change for action update , 1998 .

[10]  Vaughan R. Pratt,et al.  Dynamic algebras: Examples, constructions, applications , 1991, Stud Logica.

[11]  Patrick Doherty,et al.  Embracing Occlusion in Specifying the Indirect Effects of Actions , 1996, KR.

[12]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  Model Checking vs. Theorem Proving: A Manifesto , 1991, KR.

[13]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Actions with Indirect Effects (Preliminary Report) , 1994, KR.

[14]  Vaughan R. Pratt,et al.  Action Logic and Pure Induction , 1990, JELIA.

[15]  Isar Stubbe The Canonical Topology on a Meet-Semilattice , 2005 .

[16]  Dexter Kozen,et al.  A Representation Theorem for Models of *-Free PDL , 1980, ICALP.

[17]  Erik T. Mueller,et al.  Event Calculus Reasoning Through Satisfiability , 2004, J. Log. Comput..

[18]  J. Pearl Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference , 2000 .

[19]  Andreas Herzig,et al.  Updates, actions, and planning , 2001, IJCAI.

[20]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Representing Action: Indeterminacy and Ramifications , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  The Logic of Public Announcements and Common Knowledge and Private Suspicions , 1998, TARK.

[22]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume II. Extensions of Classical Logic , 1986 .

[23]  Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh,et al.  Algebra and Sequent Calculus for Epistemic Actions , 2005, LCMAS.