Sensor fusion in the epistemic situation calculus

Robot sensors are usually subject to error. Since in many practical scenarios a probabilistic error model is not available, sensor readings are often dealt with in a hard-coded, heuristic fashion. In this paper, we propose a logic to address the problem from a KR perspective. In this logic, the epistemic effect of sensing actions is deferred to so-called fusion actions, which may resolve discrepancies and inconsistencies of recent sensing results. Moreover, a local closed-world assumption can be applied dynamically. When needed, this assumption can be revoked and fusions can be undone using a form of forgetting.

[1]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Forgetting in Action , 2014, KR.

[2]  Keith Golden,et al.  Representing Sensing Actions: The Middle Ground Revisited , 1996, KR.

[3]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents: Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter , 2001 .

[4]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Reasoning about Continuous Uncertainty in the Situation Calculus , 2013, IJCAI.

[5]  Alex M. Andrew,et al.  Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems , 2002 .

[6]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Reasoning about Noisy Sensors and Effectors in the Situation Calculus , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[7]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  GOLOG: A Logic Programming Language for Dynamic Domains , 1997, J. Log. Program..

[8]  Moritz Tenorth,et al.  KnowRob: A knowledge processing infrastructure for cognition-enabled robots , 2013, Int. J. Robotics Res..

[9]  Murray Shanahan,et al.  Indirect and Conditional Sensing in the Event Calculus , 2003, IJCAI.

[10]  Philip Hugly,et al.  There Is A Problem with Substitutional Quantification , 2008 .

[11]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Knowledge, action, and the frame problem , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Reasoning about Noisy Sensors in the Situation Calculus , 1995, IJCAI.

[13]  John Funge,et al.  Representing Knowledge within the Situation Calculus Using Interval-Valued Epistemic Fluents , 1999, Reliab. Comput..

[14]  G. Lakemeyer,et al.  Towards Deliberative Active Perception using Persistent Memory , 2013 .

[15]  Michael Thielscher,et al.  Representing the Knowledge of a Robot , 2000, KR.

[16]  Oren Etzioni,et al.  Tractable Closed World Reasoning with Updates , 1994, KR.

[17]  Fangzhen Lin,et al.  How to Progress a Database , 1997, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems by Raymond Reiter, MIT Press, 0-262-18218-1, 448 pp., $60.00/£38.95 , 2005, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[19]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  A semantic characterization of a useful fragment of the situation calculus with knowledge , 2011, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  Situations, Si! Situation Terms, No! , 2004, KR.

[21]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  The logic of knowledge bases , 2000 .

[22]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Iterated belief change in the situation calculus , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[23]  Jack Minker,et al.  On Indefinite Databases and the Closed World Assumption , 1987, CADE.

[24]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  Belief Revision and Progression of Knowledge Bases in the Epistemic Situation Calculus , 2015, IJCAI.

[25]  Raymond Reiter On Closed World Data Bases , 1977, Logic and Data Bases.

[26]  R. Bajcsy Active perception , 1988 .

[27]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibilistic logic : a retrospective and prospective view , 2003 .

[28]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  An Incremental Interpreter for High-Level Programs with Sensing , 1999 .

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

[30]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  Decidable Reasoning in a Fragment of the Epistemic Situation Calculus , 2014, KR.