Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37 (1):189-246 (2010)
As historically acknowledged in the Reasoning about Actions and Change community, intuitiveness of a logical domain description cannot be fully automated. Moreover, like any other logical theory, action theories may also evolve, and thus knowledge engineers need revision methods to help in accommodating new incoming information about the behavior of actions in an adequate manner. The present work is about changing action domain descriptions in multimodal logic. Its contribution is threefold: first we revisit the semantics of action theory contraction proposed in previous work, giving more robust operators that express minimal change based on a notion of distance between Kripke-models. Second we give algorithms for syntactical action theory contraction and establish their correctness with respect to our semantics for those action theories that satisfy a principle of modularity investigated in previous work. Since modularity can be ensured for every action theory and, as we show here, needs to be computed at most once during the evolution of a domain description, it does not represent a limitation at all to the method here studied. Finally we state AGM-like postulates for action theory contraction and assess the behavior of our operators with respect to them. Moreover, we also address the revision counterpart of action theory change, showing that it benefits from our semantics for contraction.
|Keywords||Reasoning about Actions Belief Change Modal Logic|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic.Ivan Varzinczak - 2006 - Dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier
Metatheory of Actions: Beyond Consistency.Andreas Herzig & Ivan Varzinczak - 2007 - Artificial Intelligence 171 (1):951–984.
Resource-Bounded Belief Revision and Contraction.Mark Jago - 2006 - In P. Torroni, U. Endriss, M. Baldoni & A. Omicini (eds.), Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies III. Springer. pp. 141--154.
A Logical Analysis of the Relationship Between Commitment and Obligation.Churn-Jung Liau - 2001 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10 (2):237-261.
Infobase Change: A First Approximation. [REVIEW]Thomas Andreas Meyer, Willem Adrian Labuschagne & Johannes Heidema - 2000 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):353-377.
NO Revision and NO Contraction.Gregory Wheeler & Marco Alberti - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (3):411-430.
How to Give It Up: A Survey of Some Formal Aspects of the Logic of Theory Change.David Makinson - 1985 - Synthese 62 (3):347 - 363.
How to Give It Up: A Survey of Some Formal Aspects of the Logic of Theory Change.David Makinson - 1986 - Synthese 68 (1):185 - 186.
Infinitary Belief Revision.Dongmo Zhang & Norman Foo - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (6):525-570.
On the Logic of Theory Change: Contraction Without Recovery. [REVIEW]Eduardo L. Fermé - 1998 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):127-137.
Added to index2011-04-01
Total downloads59 ( #90,118 of 2,178,195 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,497 of 2,178,195 )
How can I increase my downloads?