Exploring the Boundaries of Decidable Verification of Non-Terminating Golog Programs

The action programming language GOLOG has been found useful for the control of autonomous agents such as mobile robots. In scenarios like these, tasks are often open-ended so that the respective control programs are non-terminating. Before deploying such programs on a robot, it is often desirable to verify that they meet certain requirements. For this purpose, Clasen and Lake-meyer recently introduced algorithms for the verification of temporal properties of GOLOG programs. However, given the expressiveness of GOLOG, their verification procedures are not guaranteed to terminate. In this paper, we show how decidability can be obtained by suitably restricting the underlying base logic, the effect axioms for primitive actions, and the use of actions within GOLOG programs. Moreover, we show that dropping any of these restrictions immediately leads to undecidability of the verification problem.

[1]  Phokion G. Kolaitis,et al.  On the Decision Problem for Two-Variable First-Order Logic , 1997, Bulletin of Symbolic Logic.

[2]  Franz Baader,et al.  Integrating Description Logics and Action Formalisms: First Results , 2005, Description Logics.

[3]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Tractable Reasoning with Incomplete First-Order Knowledge in Dynamic Systems with Context-Dependent Actions , 2005, IJCAI.

[4]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Verification of relational data-centric dynamic systems with external services , 2012, PODS '13.

[5]  Franz Baader,et al.  Verifying Properties of Infinite Sequences of Description Logic Actions , 2010, ECAI.

[6]  Craig A. Knoblock,et al.  PDDL-the planning domain definition language , 1998 .

[7]  Jens Claßen,et al.  On the Decidability of Verifying LTL Properties of Golog Programs , 2014, AAAI Spring Symposia.

[8]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications , 2003, Description Logic Handbook.

[9]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Design and Synthesis of Synchronization Skeletons Using Branching-Time Temporal Logic , 1981, Logic of Programs.

[10]  R. BurchJ.,et al.  Symbolic model checking , 1992 .

[11]  Franz Baader,et al.  Verification of Golog Programs over Description Logic Actions , 2013, FroCos.

[12]  Wolfram Burgard,et al.  Experiences with an Interactive Museum Tour-Guide Robot , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[13]  Gerhard Lakemeyer,et al.  A Logic for Non-Terminating Golog Programs , 2008, KR.

[14]  Marco Pistore,et al.  Integrating BDD-Based and SAT-Based Symbolic Model Checking , 2002, FroCoS.

[15]  Franz Baader,et al.  LTL over description logic axioms , 2008, TOCL.

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

[17]  Faron Moller,et al.  Verification on Infinite Structures , 2001, Handbook of Process Algebra.

[18]  Leszek Pacholski,et al.  Complexity Results for First-Order Two-Variable Logic with Counting , 2000, SIAM J. Comput..

[19]  Mikhail Soutchanski,et al.  A description logic based situation calculus , 2010, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[20]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Diego Calvanese,et al.  Description Logic Knowledge and Action Bases , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

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

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

[24]  Jens Claßen,et al.  Planning and Verification in the agent language Golog , 2013 .

[25]  Edmund M. Clarke,et al.  Symbolic Model Checking: 10^20 States and Beyond , 1990, Inf. Comput..

[26]  Alexander Ferrein,et al.  Logic-based robot control in highly dynamic domains , 2008, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[27]  Donald Michie,et al.  Machine Intelligence 4 , 1970 .

[28]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Situation Calculus Based Programs for Representing and Reasoning about Game Structures , 2010, KR.

[29]  Raymond Reiter,et al.  The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (Sometimes) and a Completeness Result for Goal Regression , 1991, Artificial and Mathematical Theory of Computation.

[30]  Michael Mortimer,et al.  On languages with two variables , 1975, Math. Log. Q..

[31]  John McCarthy,et al.  SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ARTI CIAL INTELLIGENCE , 1987 .

[32]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Bounded Situation Calculus Action Theories and Decidable Verification , 2012, KR.

[33]  Kenneth L. McMillan,et al.  Symbolic model checking , 1992 .

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