A. Kakas, R. Miller, and F. Toni. An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and changes. In Michael Gelfond, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-99), volume 1730 of LNAI, pages 78-- 91, Berlin, December 2--4 1999. Springer.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....the open action types in D. A corresponding entailment is then de ned in terms of these generalized models. 3 An Argumentation Proof Theory for E The basic subset of the language E , comprising only of h and c propositions, has been re formulated into the argumentation framework of LPwNF in [11]. In this section, we give a brief review of the argumentation formulation of E and show how it can be extended when we extend the syntax of the basic language or when we allow open action types in a domain description. This results in a proof theory for E which in turn will form the basis of the ....

A.C. Kakas, R.S. Miller, and F. Toni. An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In LPNMR'99, 78-91, Springer Verlag, 1999.

....the open action types in D. A corresponding entailment is then defined in terms of these generalized models. 3 An Argumentation Proof Theory for E The basic subset of the language E , comprising only of h and c propositions, has been re formulated into the argumentation framework of LPwNF in [Kakas et al. 1999] . In this section, we give a brief review of the argumentation formulation of E and show how it can be extended when we extend the syntax of the basic language or when we allow open action types in a domain description. This results in a proof theory for E which in turn will form the basis of the ....

....complimentary literals and : respectively, and A is not of lower priority than B. A set A is of lower priority than B if it has a rule of lower priority than some rule in B and does not contain any rule of higher priority than some rule in B. The exact definition of an attack, is given in [Kakas et al. 1999] . Given this translation it can be shown, under some quite general restrictions on D, that the models of D correspond exactly to the maximally (w.r.t. set inclusion) admissible extensions of P E (D) We can then use this translation of the language E to develop an argumentation based proof ....

A.C. Kakas, R.S. Miller, and F. Toni. An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In LPNMR'99, 78--91, Springer Verlag, 1999.

....in developing or applying a wider range of formulations of the Event Calculus. The Event Calculus was originally formulated as a logic program in [KoSe 86] and many alternative and extended logic program formulations have subsequently been proposed, including [DeMi 92] DeVa 96] KaMi 97] KaMi 99] Kowa 92] SaKo 95] Shan 90] VaDe 94a] VaDe 94b] VaDe 95] and [VaDe 96] The Event Calculus has also been formulated in modal logic in [CeCh 95] CeCh 96] CeFr 97a] CeFr 97b] CeFr 98] and [ChMo 94] as an action description language in [KaMi 97] and [KaMi 98] and in an ....

.... 95] Shan 90] VaDe 94a] VaDe 94b] VaDe 95] and [VaDe 96] The Event Calculus has also been formulated in modal logic in [CeCh 95] CeCh 96] CeFr 97a] CeFr 97b] CeFr 98] and [ChMo 94] as an action description language in [KaMi 97] and [KaMi 98] and in an argumentation framework in [KaMi 99] The Event Calculus has been applied to planning using abduction in [Eshg 88] Chle 96] JuFi 96] Shan 97b] Shan 98] and [Jung 98] and in particular to cognitive robotics in [Shan 96a] Shan 96b] Shan 98] and [Shan 99b] Abduction in the context of the Event Calculus is also discussed ....

A. Kakas, R. Miller and F. Toni, An Argumentation Framework for Reasoning about Actions and Change, Proceedings of LPNMR'99, 1999.

....for the problem of planning. They can o er a high level of expressivity and a basis for the development of general purpose planning algorithms. We study how one such formalism, the Language E (Kakas Miller 1997b; 1997a) can form a basis for planning. To do this we exploit the reformulation (Kakas, Miller, Toni 1999) of the Language E into an argumentation framework and the associated proof theory o ered by this reformulation. A simple extension of this argumentation based proof theory with abduction forms the basis of planning algorithms within the framework of the Language E . In this paper we will be ....

....safe plan for the goal, G = Protected holds at T f , by performing both actions InjectA and InjectB before time T f . An Argumentation Formulation of E Argumentation has recently proved to be a unifying mechanism for most existing non monotonic formalisms (Bondarenko et al. 1997; Dung 1995) In (Kakas, Miller, Toni 1999), we have adapted the LPwNF (Dimopoulos Kakas 1995) argumentation framework to provide an equivalent reformulation of the original Language E presented in section and to develop a proof theory for computing entailment of t propositions in domain descriptions. This will form the computational ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Kakas, A.; Miller, R.; and Toni, F. 1999. An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In LPNMR'99, 78-91, Springer Verlag.

....capacity as a static constraint. D c 4) cannot be used in the contrapositive to x this by generating a termination point for Petrol from the termination point for Running. 2 Description of the System The system relies upon a reformulation of the Language E into argumentation as described in (Kakas, Miller, Toni 1999). Argumentation Formulation of E A domain description D without t propositions and without r propositions is translated into an argumentation program P E (D) B(D) A E ; A 0 E ; E ) where B(D) is the background theory, A E is the argumentation theory, i.e. a set of argument rules, A 0 ....

....set can consist only of argument rules in the argument base, attacks against an admissible set are allowed to be subsets of the larger argument theory. The exact de nition of an attack, which is dependent on the priority relation E and the derivation of complimentary literals, is given in (Kakas, Miller, Toni 1999). Both B(D) and A E use the predicates HappensAt , HoldsAt , Initiation and Termination . B(D) is a set of Horn clauses corresponding to the h and c propositions in D de ning the above predicates expect HoldsAt . A E is a domain independent set of generation, persistence and assumption rules for ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Kakas, A.; Miller, R.; and Toni, F. 1999. An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and change. In LPNMR'99, 78-91, Springer Verlag.

No context found.

A. Kakas, R. Miller, and F. Toni. An argumentation framework for reasoning about actions and changes. In Michael Gelfond, Nicola Leone, and Gerald Pfeifer, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR-99), volume 1730 of LNAI, pages 78-- 91, Berlin, December 2--4 1999. Springer.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC