What Is A Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
What is a Good Domain Description?

Evaluating & Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic
Ivan José Varzinczak
IRIT – Université Paul Sabatier
October 27th 2006
Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Reasoning About Actions
Problem: describing domains by logical formulas

Actions and their effects
Executabilities of actions
Inexecutabilities of actions
Domain constraints
Example
A turkey that walks is alive
Teasing a turkey makes it walk
It is always possible to tease a turkey
A dead turkey remains dead after teasing it

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Problem: describing domains by logical formulas

Actions and their effects
Executabilities of actions
Inexecutabilities of actions
Domain constraints
Example
A turkey that walks is alive
Teasing a turkey makes it walk
It is always possible to tease a turkey

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Goal: inference tasks

Prediction
Explanation
Planning

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Prediction: reasoning about the future
Initial actions Result

state state
After shooting, the turkey stops walking

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Explanation: reasoning about the past
Initial actions Current

state state
After shooting, the turkey is dead: the gun was loaded

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Planning: what to do to achieve a goal
?
Current actions Desired
state state
To have the turkey dead: load the gun, then shoot

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Other important tasks

Consistency check
Test of executability/inexecutability
Theory change
...

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Outline
1 Introduction
Describing Action Theories
Unwanted Conclusions
2 Main Results
Decomposing Theories
Logical Modularity
Exploiting Modularity
Theory Change
3 Concluding Remarks

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Formalizing Domains
Several base formalisms

Situation calculus [McCarthy & Hayes, 1969]
s Holds loaded s Holds alive do shoot s

Languages , , etc. [Lifschitz et al., 90’s]
shoot causes alive if loaded
Fluent calculus [Thielscher, 1995]
Poss shoot tk s
State do shoot tk s
State s dead tk alive tk
...

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Formalizing Domains
In this work. . .
we have chosen Modal Logic
Weak version of Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL)
Simple and decidable
With a tableaux-based theorem prover: Lotrec

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Logical Preliminaries
Ontology
Actions: a1 a2 !!!#"
Atomic propositions: $&%!')(* p1 p2 !!!#"
Literals: +-,./$&%!'0(1243 p5 p 67$&%!'0( "
Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"
Action operators
For each a 6@ , a modal operator A aB
A aBC? : “after execution of a, ? is true”
D
aEGF : “a is inexecutable”
H
a I?J def 3KA aBC3L?
M
a NPO : “a is executable”
Complex formulas: Q 1 Q 2 !!!
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Ontology
Literals: +-,./$&%!'0(1243 p5 p 67$&%!'0( "
Action operators
D
H
M
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Ontology
Literals: +-,./$&%!'0(1243 p5 p 67$&%!'0( "
Action operators
D
H
M
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Ontology
Literals: +-,./$&%!'0(1243 p5 p 67$&%!'0( "
Action operators
D
H
M
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Example
Actions: shoot, tease
Propositions: loaded, alive, walking
H
Formulas: alive RS3 walking, tease IT ,
loaded UVA shootBC3 alive

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Semantics
Multimodal logic K [Popkorn 94,Blackburn et al. 2001].

Definition
H
Models W W R I where
W X 2Y[ZC\
] : set of possible worlds (states)
R: _^`U 2W a W
Definition
b
b )c p (p is true at world w of model W ) iff b p 6 w

w
)c A aBdQ iff for every w e such that wRa w e , )c Q
w wf
the usual truth conditions for the other connectives

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Semantics
Multimodal logic K [Popkorn 94,Blackburn et al. 2001].

Definition
H
Models W W R I where
W X 2Y[ZC\
] : set of possible worlds (states)
R: _^`U 2W a W
Definition
b
b )c p (p is true at world w of model W ) iff b p 6 w

w
)c A aBdQ iff for every w e such that wRa w e , )c Q
w wf
the usual truth conditions for the other connectives

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Semantics
Example
H
If > a1 a2 " , and $&%!'0(g p1 p2 " , W W R I , where
W >h p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "i 43 p1 p2 "h"i

l
p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kn p1 p2 "i 43 p1 p2 "4kn
R j a1 k
jm jm
p1 p2 "i 43 p1 p2 "4kn p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kJo

jm43 jm43
R j a2 k ijm p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kn jm p1 3 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kp"

is a model

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Semantics
Example
a1
a1
p1 q p2 p1 s p2 u v)w
p1 p2
r
x
a2 uv w
p1 a2 |C} p2
W : a1 a1 y{z
u v)w
} p1 y{~
a1
p1 str p2
uv w
} p2 yVz
a1 |
a2
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Semantics
Definition
b b
b c Q iff for all w 6 W, c Q

b
w
)c iff )cQ for every Q62
Definition
Q is a consequence of b the set of global axioms b in all
PDL-models
b (noted PDL Q ) iff for every W , if c , then
c Q .

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Semantics
Definition
b b
b c Q iff for all w 6 W, c Q

b
w
)c iff )cQ for every Q62
Definition
Q is a consequence of b the set of global axioms b in all
PDL-models
b (noted PDL Q ) iff for every W , if c , then
c Q .

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example
A turkey that walks is alive: walking U alive
Teasing a turkey makes it to walk: A teaseB walking
H
It is always possible to tease a turkey: tease IT
D
alive teaseE. alive
If the gun is loaded, shooting kills the turkey
D
loaded shootEd alive
Teasing does not unload the gun
D
loaded teaseE loaded

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example

H b
tease IT

walking U alive

b A teaseB alive

A teaseB walking alive teaseBPj alive RS3 alive k

b 3 UVA
loaded U{A shootBC3 alive

alive teaseB
3 alive UVA teaseBC3 alive
b 3 U{A
loaded UVA teaseB loaded alive

N.B.: Such a description is consistent
What is the problem?

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example

H b
tease IT

walking U alive

b A teaseB alive


b 3 UVA

alive teaseB
b 3 U{A


Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example

H b
tease IT

walking U alive

b A teaseB alive


b 3 UVA

alive teaseB
b 3 U{A


Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example

H b
tease IT

walking U alive

b A teaseB alive


b 3 UVA

alive teaseB
b 3 U{A


Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example

H b
tease IT

walking U alive

b A teaseB alive


b 3 UVA

alive teaseB
b 3 U{A


Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
The Tale Again
Example

H b
tease IT

walking U alive

b A teaseB alive


b 3 UVA

alive teaseB
b 3 U{A


Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Natural Modules in Action Theories
Types of domain laws

Static laws : walking U alive
Effect laws : loaded UVA shootB3 alive
H
Executability laws : hasGun U shoot IT
Inexecutability laws : 3 hasGun UVA shootBC
! only formulas of these types

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Defining modules
: set of static laws

Given a 6@

a

: effect laws for a
a
: executability laws for a

a
: inexecutability laws for a
H
a a a : domain description for a
n I
a, a, and a

a 4#
a 4#
a #
H
n I : the action theory of a given domain

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Defining modules

Given a 6@

a

: effect laws for a
a

a
H
n I
a, a, and a

a 4#
a 4#
a #
H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Defining modules

Given a 6@

a

: effect laws for a
a

a
H
n I
a, a, and a

a 4#
a 4#
a #
H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Defining modules

Given a 6@

a

: effect laws for a
a

a
H
n I
a, a, and a

a 4#
a 4#
a #
H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
What About the Frame Problem?
In our example
If we had an action wait
¡ £¤ ¢ D

PDL
loaded waitE loaded
Definition
Dependence relation [Castilho et al. 99]: ¥¦X§_¨©+ª,.
Example
shoot ¥«3 alive, tease ¥ walking, tease ¥ ¬ alive
From wait ¥«
¬ 3 loaded conclude loaded UVA waitB loaded

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
In our example
¡ £¤ ¢ D

PDL
loaded waitE loaded
Definition
Example
From wait ¥«

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
In our example
¡ £¤ ¢ D

PDL
loaded waitE loaded
Definition
Example
From wait ¥«

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
In our example
¡ £¤ ¢ D

PDL
loaded waitE loaded
Definition
Example
From wait ¥«

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Restriction on models
For all
b
wRa w e : b
b ¬ c
w
p implies b ¬ c p, if a ¥ ¬ p
wf
)c p implies 0c p, if a ¥
¬ 3 p.
w wf
New b logical consequence

b
® instead of
PDL
Example b

n ® loaded U¯A waitB loaded

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
For all
b
wRa w e : b
b ¬ c
w
wf
¬ 3 p.
w wf

b
® instead of
PDL
Example b


Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
For all
b
wRa w e : b
b ¬ c
w
wf
¬ 3 p.
w wf

b
® instead of
PDL
Example b


Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
The dependence-based approach. . .

solves the frame problem
subsumes Reiter’s regression [Demolombe et al. 2003]
does not entirely solve the ramification problem
e.g. shoot °± walking
But is the only approach that works for domains with
actions with both indeterminate and indirect effects
[Castilho et al. 2002], [Herzig & Varzinczak 2004]

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change


Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change


Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Consistency and More

Postulates b
PC (Consistency):

a a a ¬ ®
b b
n
PS (No implicit static laws): if

a a a , then

n ® ? ?
PI (No implicit inexecutability laws):

b
if a n a a ® ?²U{A aB ,

b
then a PDL ?²UVA aBC

PX (No implicit executability laws): H

b
if a n a a ®³?²U H a IT ,

b
then n a PDL ?JU

a IT
Motivation
Better control what is going on

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Postulates b
PC (Consistency):

a a a ¬ ®
b b
n

a a a , then

n ® ? ?

b

b


b

b
then n a PDL ?JU

a IT
Motivation

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Postulates b
PC (Consistency):

a a a ¬ ®
b b
n

a a a , then

n ® ? ?

b

b


b

b
then n a PDL ?JU

a IT
Motivation

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Postulates b
PC (Consistency):

a a a ¬ ®
b b
n

a a a , then

n ® ? ?

b

b


b

b
then n a PDL ?JU

a IT
Motivation

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Postulates b
PC (Consistency):

a a a ¬ ®
b b
n

a a a , then

n ® ? ?

b

b


b

b
then n a PDL ?JU

a IT
Motivation

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
No Implicit Static Laws

Example
l
teaseB walking
walking alive "i_
A

U
o
H
tease IT "i[ 43 alive UVA teaseBC "
tease ¥ walking shoot ¥«3 alive

b

tease
b tease tease ® alive
n
But alive

¬
! Postulate PS violated

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
l
teaseB walking
walking alive "i_
A

U
o
H

b

tease
n
But alive

¬

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
l
teaseB walking
walking alive "i_
A

U
o
H

b

tease
n
But alive

¬

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
l
teaseB walking
walking alive "i_
A

U
o
H

b

tease
n
But alive

¬

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Idea of algorithm
H
For each ?JU a IT
1 find ?[eUVA aBC entailed by the theory
if ?´R©?[e is consistent with

2
Gµ&¶µ·¸ is possibly an implicit law
Result: the set of all implicit static laws

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Idea of algorithm
H
For each ?JU a IT
1 find ?[eUVA aBC entailed by the theory
if ?´R©?[e is consistent with

2
Gµ&¶µ·¸ is possibly an implicit law
Result: the set of all implicit static laws

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Algorithm 1: Finding all implicit static laws induced by a
input: ¹¸º_»¼ a »
½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
output: º imp* , the set of all implicit static laws of ¹¸º_»¼ a »P½ a »#¾ a ¿
calls: NewConsÁÃÂ.Ä:ÅÇÆ PI ÂGÈÊÉËÄ:Å=Ì PI ÂGÈÇÅ
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
for all ÈÏÎ¦¹ a ¿ÐÒÑ ½ a do
for all Ó a fÃÔ ¼ a Õ ¾ a do
a f¸Þ
È×Ö a Ø := ÙKÚnÈ i Û È i Î¦Ü aÝÄ i
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ä Ö a Ø := ÙKÚßÄ i Û È i Î¦Ü aÝÄ i
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
NewConsáÂ.ÄÇÖ a Ø Å do
if º Õ º imp* Õ ÚpÈ`»PÈ×Ö a Ø»
âtà Þãgä and å li Ñ à» a À æ li then
º imp := º imp
Õ
ÚnâçÂGÈÊÉèÈ Ö a Ø ÉéâtàÇÅ Þ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

½ a ».¾ a ¿ and À
º imp* := Í
repeat
º imp := Í
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
a f¸Þ
Ñ
Ó
for all à Ñ
º imp := º imp
Õ
º imp* := º imp*
Õ
º imp
until º imp Æ7Í

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
Ü teaseÝ walking »
ºSÆ©Ú walking Î alive Þ »`¼ÏÆ ê »
loaded Î¦Ü shootÝ#â alive ë
½Æ©Úì¹ tease¿Ð Þ »i¾@Æ©Úpâ alive Î¦Ü teaseÝ ä_Þ
tease À walking » shoot Àíâ alive

H
For tease IT and A teaseB walking:
NewConsîLj walking k alive: A teaseB alive
tease ¥ ¬ alive: 3 alive U{A teaseB3 alive
Hence 3 alive U{A teaseBC
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½Æ©Ú ¹ tease¿Ð Þ »i¾@Æ©Úpâ alive Î¦Ü teaseÝ ä_Þ

H
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

H
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

H
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

H
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

H
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

H
b b
alive " : alive

124TRS3 ¬ ¬

imp alive "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Example (cont.)
Alternatives for repairing:

:= 1© alive "
add tease ¥ alive
weaken A teaseB walking: alive UVA teaseB walking
H H
weaken tease IT : alive U tease IT
contraction of action theories (addressed later)

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Example (cont.)

:= 1© alive "
add tease ¥ alive
H H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Example (cont.)

:= 1© alive "
add tease ¥ alive
H H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Theorem
H
a a aI and ¥ satisfy Postulate PS iff

.
n imp* ðï
Theorem
H

Let imp* be the output of Algorithm 1 on input a a aI
n
and ¥ . Then
H
ab a aI has no implicit static law.
1 imp* n

a a a
n ®³ñ imp* .
Corollary b b
For all ,

a a a iff

.
?ò6@8:9<; n ® ? 1 imp* ?

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Theorem
H

.
n imp* ðï
Theorem
H

n
and ¥ . Then
H
1 imp* n

a a a
n ®³ñ imp* .
Corollary b b
For all ,

a a a iff

.
?ò6@8:9<; n ® ? 1 imp* ?

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Theorem
H

.
n imp* ðï
Theorem
H

n
and ¥ . Then
H
1 imp* n

a a a
n ®³ñ imp* .
Corollary b b
For all ,

a a a iff

.
?ò6@8:9<; n ® ? 1 imp* ?

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
No Implicit Inexecutability Laws

Example
½óÆ*¾<ÆSÍì»
b
tease À walking » shoot Àôâ alive

tease b ß®õA teaseB alive

tease ® 3 alive UVA teaseb B3 alive (from tease ¥ ¬ alive)

Thus

teaseb tease tease ® 3 alive UVA teaseBC
n
But

tease ¬ 3 alive UVA teaseBC

PDL
! Postulate PI violated

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½óÆ*¾<ÆSÍì»
b



Thus

n
But


PDL

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½óÆ*¾<ÆSÍì»
b



Thus

n
But


PDL

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½óÆ*¾<ÆSÍì»
b



Thus

n
But


PDL

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½óÆ*¾<ÆSÍì»
b



Thus

n
But


PDL

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½óÆ*¾<ÆSÍì»
b



Thus

n
But


PDL

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Idea of algorithm
For each combination of effect laws
1 find inconsistent consequents
2 mark it as an implicit inexecutability
Result: the set of all implicit inexecutabilities

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Idea of algorithm
For each combination of effect laws
1 find inconsistent consequents
2 mark it as an implicit inexecutability
Result: the set of all implicit inexecutabilities

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Algorithm 2: Finding implicit inexecutability laws for a

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
output: imp , the set of implicit inexecutability laws for a
calls: NewConsöçj÷ k PI jP?7R´÷ kø PI jP? k
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"
÷ù a f := ñ ì÷ i 5Ã? i UVA aBd÷ i 6

a e
"
for all úò6 NewConsî j÷ªù a f k do

if û li 67ú a ¥ ¬ li and a ü jP?[ù a f RS3ú k UVA aBC then

a a
imp := imp 12ijP?[ù a f R73ªú k UVA aBC "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"

a e
"


a a

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"

a e
"


a a

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"

a e
"


a a

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"

a e
"


a a

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"

a e
"


a a

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
input: a a I and ¥

a
a
imp := ï
for all a e X a do
?ù a f := ñ 4? i 5=? i UVA aBd÷ i 6
ae
"

a e
"


a a

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example
½Æg¾@Æ7Íì» tease À walking » shoot Àôâ alive

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Example

For action tease:
Then 3 alive
b
UVA teaseBC

tease alive teaseBC
¬ 3 UVA

PDL
tease alive teaseB
imp 43 UVA "

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Theorem
H
IfH a a aIand ¥ satisfy Postulate PS, then
n

a a aI and ¥ satisfy Postulate PI iff imp ðï .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Generalizing the Postulates
Postulate
PS* (No implicit static laws):
b b
if ný ®³? , then

?
PDL
Theorem
H H
and ¥ satisfy PS* iff
I
a a aI and ¥
n n
satisfy PS for all a 67 .

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Postulate
PS* (No implicit static laws):
b b
if ný ®³? , then

?
PDL
Theorem
H H
and ¥ satisfy PS* iff
I
a a aI and ¥
n n
satisfy PS for all a 67 .

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Postulate b
PC* (Logical consistency):

ný ¬ ®
Theorem
H H
If n I and
H
¥ satisfy PS*, then nJ I and ¥
satisfy PC* iff a a a I and ¥ satisfies PC for all a 67 .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Postulate b
PC* (Logical consistency):

ný ¬ ®
Theorem
H H
If n I and
H
¥ satisfy PS*, then nJ I and ¥
satisfy PC* iff a a a I and ¥ satisfies PC for all a 67 .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Postulate
PI* (No implicit inexecutability laws):
b b
if n ®þ?JUVA aB , then aBC

?JUVA
PDL
Theorem
H H
Let n H I and ¥ satisfy PS*. n I and ¥
satisfy PI* iff

a a a I and ¥ satisfy PI for all a 6@ .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Postulate
PI* (No implicit inexecutability laws):
b b
if n ®þ?JUVA aB , then aBC

?JUVA
PDL
Theorem
H H
Let n H I and ¥ satisfy PS*. n I and ¥
satisfy PI* iff

a a a I and ¥ satisfy PI for all a 6@ .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
If n I and ¥ satisfy Postulate PS*, then
Theorem b b

n ® iff .
Theorem b b

® ?JUVA aBd÷ iff

a a ® ?JUVA aBG÷ .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
Theorem b b

n ® iff .
Theorem b b

® ?JUVA aBd÷ iff

a a ® ?JUVA aBG÷ .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
Theorem b b
H H

® ?JU a IT iff

a ® ?JU a IT .
n n
Corollary
PX is a consequence of PS.
Theorem
H
If n and ¥ satisfy Postulates PS* and PI*, then
b b
I
iff a ® ?JUVA aB .

n ® ?JUVA aBC

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
Theorem b b
H H

® ?JU a IT iff

a ® ?JU a IT .
n n
Corollary
Theorem
H
b b
I
iff a ® ?JUVA aB .

n ® ?JUVA aBC

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
Theorem b b
H H

® ?JU a IT iff

a ® ?JU a IT .
n n
Corollary
Theorem
H
b b
I
iff a ® ?JUVA aB .

n ® ?JUVA aBC

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
Theorem b

a1 !!!ÿ an Bd÷ iff
b
n ® ?JUVA

a1 an a1 an ® ?JUVA a1 !!!ÿ an Bd÷ .

Theorem b
H
a1 !!!ÿ an IP÷ iff
b
n ® ?JU
H

a1 an a1 an a1 an ® ?JU a1 !!!ÿ an IP÷ .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Reasoning Modularly
H
Theorem b

a1 !!!ÿ an Bd÷ iff
b
n ® ?JUVA

a1 an a1 an ® ?JUVA a1 !!!ÿ an Bd÷ .

Theorem b
H
a1 !!!ÿ an IP÷ iff
b
n ® ?JU
H

a1 an a1 an a1 an ® ?JU a1 !!!ÿ an IP÷ .
n

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Outline
1 Introduction
2 Main Results
Logical Modularity
Theory Change

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Another Tale
Example
If the switch is up, the room is lit up
up light
Toggling the switch changes its position
D
up
D
toggleE up
up toggleEd up
It is always possible to toggle the switch
M
toggle NO

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
The Need for Theory Change
You observe that. . .

even if the switch is up the light is off.
in a blackout, you do not succeed to switch the light on.
despite your efforts you do not manage to toggle the
switch.

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Motivation
Contracting by a static law

You observe that even if the switch is up the light is off
Static law up U light must be given up

Can we just contract the static laws of ?
May not be enough: side effects!
Conflict with ½
The contracted law may be an implicit one

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting by a static law

You observe that even if the switch is up the light is off
Static law up U light must be given up

Can we just contract the static laws of ?
May not be enough: side effects!
Conflict with ½
The contracted law may be an implicit one

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting by an effect law

During a blackout you do not succeed to switch the light on
Effect law 3 up UVA toggleB light must be given up
Important issue: give up as few as possible

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting by an effect law

During a blackout you do not succeed to switch the light on
Effect law 3 up UVA toggleB light must be given up
Important issue: give up as few as possible

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting by an executability law

Despite your efforts you do not manage to toggle the switch
H
Executability law up U toggle IT must be given up
Side effects?

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Semantics
Playing with models
toggle

up q
light up s light
toggle
Semantical contraction produces a set of models:

v
W R W
R

~ ~

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Playing with models
toggle

up q
light up s light
toggle
Semantical contraction produces a set of models:

v
W R W
R

~ ~

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting static laws
H
W R Iup

light
Intuition: add some up R73 light-worlds to W

toggle

up q
light up s light
toggle
up s×r light
Don’t add new arrows to R!

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
H
W R Iup

light
Intuition: add some up R73 light-worlds to W

toggle

up q
light up s light
toggle
up s×r light
Don’t add new arrows to R!

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Rely on any belief change operator for classical logic
Say PMA, . . .
H H
W RI up

light W e Re I " , where
W· W
PMA up light
R· R b
H H
N.B.: We Re Ié¬ toggle IT
Executability laws to be weakened!

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Say PMA, . . .
H H
W RI up

W· W
PMA up light
R· R b
H H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

Say PMA, . . .
H H
W RI up

W· W
PMA up light
R· R b
H H

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting effect laws

H
W RI
up toggle light
Intuition: add some arrows from 3 up-worlds to

3 light-worlds
toggle
toggle

up q
light up s light
toggle

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
W RI
up toggle light b
H
W R 1 Rae I§5 Rae X ij w we k 5 w 3 up "h"
Problems:
Don’t link light-worlds
Don’t link all light-worlds

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
W RI
up toggle light b
H
W R 1 Rae I§5 Rae X ij w we k 5 w 3 up "h"
Problems:
Don’t link light-worlds
Don’t link all light-worlds

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contracting executability laws

H
W RI up

toggle

Intuition: delete some arrows leaving up-worlds
toggle

up q
light up s light

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
W RI up

toggle

b
H
W R ø Rae I§5 Rae Xðij w we k 5 wRa w e and w up "h"
N.B.: if there is no up-world, then contraction is not

successful!

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change

H
W RI up

toggle

b
H
W R ø Rae I§5 Rae Xðij w we k 5 wRa w e and w up "h"
N.B.: if there is no up-world, then contraction is not

successful!

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Syntax
Domain descriptions
H
Simplification: n I
Resulting action theory

M ¡ M ¡
N!" · · · N

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Syntax

H H
n up
I
light e e I , where
¡ ¡

·
PMA up light $# light up %
·
M M
#P up & light ¶Ïµ:[ toggle NPO('Kµ@ toggle NPO*) %

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Syntax

H H
n up
I
light e e I , where
¡ ¡

·
PMA up light $# light up %
·
M M
#P up & light ¶Ïµ:[ toggle NPO('Kµ@ toggle NPO*) %

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Syntax

H H
n I
up toggle light e n I , where
D D
· +# up ¶µ toggleE-,.'Kµ´ toggleE-,/) %

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Contraction: Syntax

H H
n up toggle 0
I e I , where
M M
· +#C up ¶µ toggle NO('Kµ@ toggle NPO*) %

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Soundness
Theorem b b
H H H
If W R I R R , then W R I 1 n I 1 .

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Incompleteness
Example
H
, p aBC , a IT

ðï UVA " "
H H
Unique model: W R I- h43 p "h"i ijm43 p "i 43 p "4kp" I
H H H
n p a 0
I ï p UVA aB "i 43 p
b U a IT " I .
H
Syntactically: successful, as a IT .

n e ¬
PDL
p U
Semantically: contraction is unsuccessful!

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Incompleteness
Example
H
, p aBC , a IT

ðï UVA " "
H H
H H H
n p a 0
b U a IT " I .
H

n e ¬
PDL
p U

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Incompleteness
Example
H
, p aBC , a IT

ðï UVA " "
H H
H H H
n p a 0
b U a IT " I .
H

n e ¬
PDL
p U

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Incompleteness
Example
H
, p aBC , a IT

ðï UVA " "
H H
H H H
n p a 0
b U a IT " I .
H

n e ¬
PDL
p U

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Incompleteness
Example
H
, p aBC , a IT

ðï UVA " "
H H
H H H
n p a 0
b U a IT " I .
H

n e ¬
PDL
p U

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Completeness: Modularity
Theorem b
H H
IfH and ¥ satisfy Postulate PS*, H then iff
b b
n I n I 1 32
H
W RI 1 32 , for every W R I such that W R I .

R R

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Outlook: Semantics of Revision
Levi identity
Revise by glued U{A toggleBC amounts to
D
1 Contract by glued D toggleEGFK
2 Expand by glued toggleEGF
Problem: we can contract by domain laws only
D M

M ¡
glued

toggleEGFK54 glued ¶ toggle NPOK

N!
glued 687 toggle 90: not defined
What is the negation of
an effect law?
an executability law?

Introduction
Logical Modularity
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Theory Change
Outlook: Semantics of Revision
Levi identity
Revise by glued U{A toggleBC amounts to
D
1 Contract by glued D toggleEGFK
2 Expand by glued toggleEGF
Problem: we can contract by domain laws only
D M

M ¡
glued

toggleEGFK54 glued ¶ toggle NPOK

N!
glued 687 toggle 90: not defined
What is the negation of
an effect law?
an executability law?

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Related Work
Modularity
[Pirri & Reiter 1999]: deterministic actions without
ramifications in Situation Calculus
[Amir 2000]: object-oriented concepts in Situation Calculus
[Zhang et al. 2002]: EPDL approach/normal form
[Lang et al. 2003]: computational complexity
[Kakas et al. 2005]: elaboration tolerance, concurrent
actions
[Ghilardi, Lutz & Wolter, KR’06]: uniform interpolation and
conservative extensions in ;=<

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Related Work
Theory change
[Li& Pereira 1996]: motivations
[Liberatore 2000]: meta-results
[Eiter et al. 2005/06]: update in action languages

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Summary
Claim
Consistency is not enough to evaluate a domain
description
The dynamic part of an action theory should not influence
the non-dynamic one (otherwise: problems)
Contribution
Fine-grained postulates of modularity
Algorithms to check/give hints on modularity
Satisfaction of modularity
More efficient reasoning
Important for updating theories [Herzig et al. ECAI’06]
Our results apply to every approach allowing for , ,

and
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Summary
Claim
Consistency is not enough to evaluate a domain
description
The dynamic part of an action theory should not influence
the non-dynamic one (otherwise: problems)
Contribution
Fine-grained postulates of modularity
Algorithms to check/give hints on modularity
Satisfaction of modularity
More efficient reasoning
Important for updating theories [Herzig et al. ECAI’06]
Our results apply to every approach allowing for , ,

and
Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Summary
Contribution (cont.)
Semantics of action theory contraction
Domain-independent
Does not require extra information (preferences/epistemic
entrenchment relation/. . . )
Fully automatic
Completeness result: highlights importance of modularity

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Summary
Modularity is also fruitful. . .

for theories in general [Herzig & Varzinczak AiML’04]
in the Situation Calculus [Herzig & Varzinczak IJCAI’05]
in Description Logics [Herzig & Varzinczak JELIA’06]
(See next slide)
Future work
Fine tune contraction of effect laws
Contract by any formulas (not just laws)
Postulates about effect laws? about causation?

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Summary
Modularity is also fruitful. . .

for theories in general [Herzig & Varzinczak AiML’04]
in the Situation Calculus [Herzig & Varzinczak IJCAI’05]
in Description Logics [Herzig & Varzinczak JELIA’06]
(See next slide)
Future work
Fine tune contraction of effect laws
Contract by any formulas (not just laws)
Postulates about effect laws? about causation?

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Outlook: Modularity in Description Logics
Example
Suppose a passport control system in an airport
Such a system is composed of many software components
One of them an ontology (knowledge base) about
passengers
All passengers must be controlled

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Example (Ontology)
A passenger has a passport
European citizens have European passports
Foreigners have non-European passports
Someone with double citizenship is a foreigner and a
European

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Example (The ontology in DL)

Terminology:
Passenger >@? passport O
EUcitizen > passport EU
Foreigner > passport EU
2Citizen > Foreigner A EUcitizen
Assertions:
EU POLAND
EUcitizen JAN
passport JAN POLAND

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks

Nevertheless
BC KC N
C
Passenger FHG passport I Ð » CL
Æ 2Citizen Fgå passport I Â EU JÊâ EU Å
EUcitizen Fgå passport I EU »
D
N
C
CE
Foreigner F*å passport I â EU »
C
C Æ 2Citizen Fgå passport I ä
2Citizen F Foreigner J EUcitizen
M
N
Æ 2Citizen F´â Passenger
Someone with double citizenship is not a passenger
Hence. . .
!
if we have 2Citizen j BINLADENk ,
this individual is not obliged to be controlled!

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks

Nevertheless
BC KC N
C
D
N
C
CE
C
M
N
Hence. . .
!

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks

Nevertheless
BC KC N
C
D
N
C
CE
C
M
N
Hence. . .
!

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks

Nevertheless
BC KC N
C
D
N
C
CE
C
M
N
Hence. . .
!

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks

Nevertheless
BC KC N
C
D
N
C
CE
C
M
N
Hence. . .
!

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks

Nevertheless
BC KC N
C
D
N
C
CE
C
M
N
Hence. . .
!

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Our results. . .
can be applied in DL, too

Introduction
Main Results
Concluding Remarks
Thank you!
Merci beaucoup !
Danke schön!
Choukran!
¡Muchas gracias!
Muito obrigado!

Can We Ask for More?
Postulate about effects

PE (No implicit effect laws):
b b
if ný ® ?²U{A aBd÷ and aBC ,

b
n ¬ ® ?JUVA
then ® ?JUVA aBd÷


Example
l
loaded R alive k U{A shootB alive
ðï L
jP3 o
H
hasGun U shoot IT "i[ 43 hasGun U{A shootBC "
shoot ¥3 alive

b

nJ
b
® 3 hasGun O loaded UVA shootB3 alive

nJ
b
¬ ® 3 hasGun O loaded UVA shootB

but ¬ ® 3 hasGun O loaded UVA shootBC3 alive

Example
l
ðï L
jP3 o
H
shoot ¥3 alive

b

nJ
b

nJ
b


Example
l
ðï L
jP3 o
H
shoot ¥3 alive

b

nJ
b

nJ
b


Postulate about effects

P (No unattainable effects):
b b
if ® ?JUVA aBG÷ , then

nJ ¬ ® ?²UVA aBC

Example
l
ðï L
jP3 o
H
shoot ¥3 alive

b
® jP3 hasGun
b
R loadedk UVA shootBC3 alive
but

ný ® jP3 hasGun R loadedk UVA shootBC

Example
l
ðï L
jP3 o
H
shoot ¥3 alive

b
® jP3 hasGun
b
R loadedk UVA shootBC3 alive
but

ný ® jP3 hasGun R loadedk UVA shootBC

What Is A Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is A Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak

IRIT – Université Paul Sabatier

October 27th 2006

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Problem: describing domains by logical formulas

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Problem: describing domains by logical formulas

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Goal: inference tasks

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Prediction: reasoning about the future

Initial actions Result

After shooting, the turkey stops walking

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Explanation: reasoning about the past

Initial actions Current

After shooting, the turkey is dead: the gun was loaded

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Planning: what to do to achieve a goal

To have the turkey dead: load the gun, then shoot

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Reasoning About Actions

Other important tasks

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Several base formalisms

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Multimodal logic K [Popkorn 94,Blackburn et al. 2001].

b )c p (p is true at world w of model W ) iff b p 6 w

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Multimodal logic K [Popkorn 94,Blackburn et al. 2001].

b )c p (p is true at world w of model W ) iff b p 6 w

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

W >h p1  p2 "i  p1  3 p2 "i 43 p1  p2 "h"i

p1  p2 "i 43 p1  p2 "4kn p1  p2 "i  p1  3 p2 "4kJo

R j a2 k ijm p1  p2 "i  p1  3 p2 "4kn jm p1  3 p2 "i  p1  3 p2 "4kp"

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

b c Q iff for all w 6 W,  c Q

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

b c Q iff for all w 6 W,  c Q

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

The Tale Again

Ivan José Varzinczak What is a Good Domain Description?

The Tale Again

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive 

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

Classical formulas: 8:9<;=>4? 1 ? 2 !!!#"

b )c p (p is true at world w of model W ) iff b p 6 w

b )c p (p is true at world w of model W ) iff b p 6 w

W >h p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "i 43 p1 p2 "h"i

p1 p2 "i 43 p1 p2 "4kn p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kJo

R j a2 k ijm p1 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kn jm p1 3 p2 "i p1 3 p2 "4kp"

b c Q iff for all w 6 W, c Q

b c Q iff for all w 6 W, c Q

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive

loaded U{A shootBC3 alive