C. Baral and J. Lobo. Defeasible specifications in action theories. In Intl. Joint Conference on AI, 1997. Home/Search Document Details and Download
Summary Related Articles Check |
This paper is cited in the following contexts:
Handling Defeasibilities in Reasoning about Action: A Prioritized.. - Zhang (Correct)
....other types of defeasible information, such as defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects, that also significantly influence temporal prediction and postdiction reasoning. Although the problem of defeasibilities has been investigated by some researchers recently, e.g. [2, 7, 13, 25], none of the previous proposals is completely satisfactory in terms of representing and handling different types of defeasibilities in temporal reasoning (we will address this issue in detail in section 7) In this paper, we address three basic types of defeasible information related to temporal ....
....Not surprisingly, due to such restriction, this approach is also hard to be extended to handle defeasible 49 constraints in reasoning about action. Baral and Lobo recently also proposed an action formulation to address the issue of defeasible constraints and actions with defeasible effects [2]. Following a similar spirit of Gelfond and Lifschitz s action language A [9] Baral and Lobo proposed an action language named ADC to describe action domains in which both defeasible constraints and actions with defeasible effects are admitted. In their language ADC a defeasible constraint like ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
Baral, C. and Lobo, J., Defeasible specifications in action theories. In Procceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97), pp1441-1446. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1997.
Pertinence Logic for Reasoning about Actions and Change - Otero (1997) (Correct)
....other causal approaches in solving ramification and (simple) qualification. The difference is that our approach rests on causality as being internal to pertinence logic instead of the representation of causality based on inference rules [6] on explicit causal relations [11] or on causal languages [2] [9] In the follow up of this work, the definition of ACL 2 should be extended to introduce a comparison with the most popular ontologies for action and change: Situation Calculus [7] Features and Fluents [10] A languages [4] and Event Calculus [5] The other important developments is the ....
Chitta Baral and Jorge Lobo. Defeasible specifications in actions theories. In Proc. of the Intl. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 1997.
Representing Defeasible Constraints and Observations in Action.. - Zhang (Correct)
.... defeasible information in problem domains, e.g. 7] However, recent work on causality reveals that in many situations defeasibility plays an important role in temporal prediction and postdiction and ignoring this issue may cause difficulties to derive correct solutions in reasoning about action [2, 3, 11]. In this paper, we address two specific types of defeasible information related to temporal prediction and postdiction reasoning with incomplete information: defeasible constraints and defeasible observations. We propose a general formulation of reasoning about action based on prioritized logic ....
....paper, we actually further extended our action theories to represent actions with defeasible effects. Compared with previous related work, our approach is unified and flexible in terms of representing various defeasible information in reasoning about action. For instance, approaches presented in [2], 3] and [11] respectively were not able to represent defeasible observations in action theories, while the method described in [6] was not suitable to express defeasible causal rules of the domain though it indeed addressed the problem of defeasible observations. Due to a lack of space, a ....
C. Baral and J. Lobo, Defeasible specifications in action theories. In Procceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'97). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 1997.
Formalizing (and Reasoning About) the Specifications of.. - Trajcevski, Baral, Lobo Self-citation (Baral Lobo) (Correct)
....a desired goal) given the tendency of domain experts to specify mostly plausible scenarios, can we handle the occurrence of exceptional cases. 1. 1 An Overview of Our Approach In this work, we view workflows as a collection of cooperative agents and use recent results on reasoning about actions [4, 6, 29, 36] to formalize the process of their specification and test their correctness. Our approach, in a philosophical sense, resembles formalization of database updates [43] and transactions [15, 16] Our main contributions are as follows. We present a very simple, high level language AW and, based on it, ....
.... the Workflow Specifications Specification and reasoning about activities in our approach is done using a tool based on a high level language AW , developed in the spirit of the action description language A [26] the description of the language is based on AK in [11] L active in [7] and ADC in [6]) Action theories have been successfully used in reasoning about robot control programs [37] and in the logical formalization of active databases [5, 7] reasoning about parameterized actions, qualification and ramification constraints, concurrent execution of actions [29] The later use makes ....
[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]
C. Baral and J. Lobo. Defeasible specifications in action theories. In Intl. Joint Conference on AI, 1997.
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