Professional Documents
Culture Documents
¬t, c, h M : t, c, h b t, ¬c, h
M1′ : t, c, h b t, ¬c, h
¬t, ¬c, ¬h t, ¬c, ¬h ¬t, ¬c, h
M3′ :
Now we can define the possible sets of models resulting t, c, h b t, ¬c, h
from contracting an effect law from a set of models:
b
Definition 10 Let M be a set of models, and ϕ → [a]ψ
an effect law. Then M− ′ ′
ϕ→[a]ψ = {M : M = M ∪ ¬t, ¬c, ¬h t, ¬c, ¬h ¬t, ¬c, h
{M ′ }, M ′ ∈ contraction(M , ϕ → [a]ψ), M ∈ M}.
Figure 5: Models resulting from contracting the effect law
Taking again M = {M }, for M as in Figure 2, after token → [buy]hot in the model M of Figure 2. The new
contracting the effect law token → [buy]hot from M, we get arrows are the dashed ones.
M− ′ ′
token→[buy]hot = {M ∪ {Mi } : 1 ≤ i ≤ 3}, where all Mi s
are as depicted in Figure 5. What we can do is choose which laws we accept to lose and
postpone their change (by the other operators).
If ϕ is not satisfied by M or ψ is true in M , of course we
do not succeed in falsifying ϕ → [a]ψ. In these cases, prior The tradition in the reasoning about actions community
to do that we must change our set of possible states. says that executability laws are, in general, more difficult to
state than effect laws, and hence are more likely to be incor-
Contraction of Static Laws rect. Relying on this, in (Herzig, Perrussel, and Varzinczak
When contracting a static law in a model, we want to admit 2006) no change in the accessibility relation is made, what
at least one possible state falsifying it. Intuitively this means means preserving effect laws and postponing correction of
that we should add new worlds to the original model. This executability laws. We here embrace this solution. It is con-
is quite easy. A delicate issue however is what to do with troversial whether this approach is in line with the intuition
the accessibility relation: should new arrows leave/arrive at or not (see (Varzinczak 2008a) for an alternative). Anyway,
the new world? If no arrow leaves the new added world, with the information we have at hand, this is the safest way
we may lose an executability law. If some arrow leaves it, of contracting static laws.
we may lose an effect law, the same holding if we add an Definition 11 Let M = hW, Ri be a PDL-model. Then
arrow pointing to the new world. If no arrow arrives at the M ′ = hW′ , R′ i ∈ Mϕ− if and only if
new world, what about the intuition? Do we want to have an • W ⊆ W′
unreachable state?
• R = R′
All this discussion shows how drastic a change in the M′
static laws may be: it is a change in the underlying struc- • There is w ∈ W′ s.t. 6|=
w
ϕ
ture (possible states) of the world! Changing it may have as The minimal modifications of one model are as expected:
consequence the loss of an effect law or an executability law.
Definition 12 Let M be a model and ϕ a static law. Then
2
We do not need M in the local contraction of executabilities
[
− contraction(M , ϕ) = min{Mϕ− , M }
Mϕ→hai⊤ as all effects are preserved along the removal of arrows.
And we define the sets of models resulting from contract- contexts where ¬ϕ is the case. Second, in order to get min-
ing a static law from one set of models: imality, we must make a executable in some contexts where
ϕ is true, viz. all ϕ-worlds but one. This means that we can
Definition 13 Let M be a set of models, and ϕ a static have several action theories as outcome.
law. Then M− ′ ′
ϕ = {M : M = M ∪ {M }, M ∈
′ ′
Algorithm 1 gives a syntactical operator to achieve this.
contraction(M , ϕ), M ∈ M}.
In our example, contracting the static law coffee → hot Algorithm 1 Contraction of an executability law
from M = {M }, with M as in Figure 2, will give us input: T, ϕ → hai⊤
M− ′ ′
coffee→hot = {M ∪ {M1 }, M ∪ {M2 }}, where each Mi
′ output: T −ϕ→hai⊤ /* a set of theories */
is as depicted in Figure 6. if T |=PDL
ϕ → hai⊤ then
for all π ∈ IP(S ∧ ϕ) do
for all A ⊆
V atm(π) do V
¬t, c, h t, c, ¬h ϕA := pi ∈atm(π) pi ∧ pi ∈atm(π) ¬pi
pi ∈A /
pi ∈A
b b if S 6|=
CPL
(π ∧ ϕA ) → ⊥ then
M1′ : (T \ Xa ) ∪
t, c, h b t, ¬c, h T ′ :=
{(ϕi ∧ ¬(π ∧ ϕA )) → hai⊤ : ϕi → hai⊤ ∈ Xa }
T− : − ′
ϕ→hai⊤ = T ϕ→hai⊤ ∪ {T }
else
¬t, ¬c, ¬h t, ¬c, ¬h ¬t, ¬c, h T−ϕ→hai⊤ = {T}
:
Figure 6: Models resulting from contracting the static law Contracting Effect Laws
coffee → hot in the model M of Figure 2. The new added When contracting an effect law ϕ → [a]ψ from a theory T,
coffee ∧ ¬hot-worlds are dashed. intuitively we should change some effect laws that preclude
¬ψ in target worlds. In order to cope with minimality, we
Notice that by not modifying the accessibility relation all must change only those laws that are relevant to ϕ → [a]ψ.
the effect laws are preserved with minimal change. More- Let Eaϕ,ψ denote the minimum subset of the effect laws in
over, our approach is also intuitive: when learning that a Ea such that S , Eaϕ,ψ |=
PDL
ϕ → [a]ψ. In the case where the
new state is now possible, we do not necessarily know all theory is modular (Herzig and Varzinczak 2005) (see fur-
the behavior of the action in the new added state. ther), interpolation guarantees that such a set always exists.
Moreover, note that there can be more than one such a set,
Syntactic Operators for Contraction in which case we denote them (Eaϕ,ψ )1 , . . . , (Eaϕ,ψ )n . Let
[
We now turn our attention to the definition of a syntacti- Ea− = (Eaϕ,ψ )i
cal counterpart of our semantic operators. As (Nebel 1989) 1≤i≤n
says, “[. . . ] finite bases usually represent [. . . ] laws, and
when we are forced to change the theory we would like to The laws in Ea− will serve as guideline to get rid of ϕ → [a]ψ
stay as close as possible to the original [. . . ] base.” Hence, in the theory.
besides the definition of syntactical operators, we should The first thing that we must do is to ensure that action
also guarantee that they perform minimal change. a still has effect ψ (if that was so) in all those contexts in
which ϕ does not hold. This means that we shall weaken the
By T −
Φ we denote in the sequel the result of contracting a laws in Eaϕ,ψ specializing them to ¬ϕ.
law Φ from the set of laws T.
Second, we need to preserve all old effects in all ϕ-worlds
but one. To achieve that, we specialize the above laws to
Contracting Executability Laws each possible valuation satisfying ϕ but one. In the left ϕ-
For the case of contracting an executability law ϕ → hai⊤ valuation, we must ensure that action a has either its old
from an action theory, the first thing we do is to ensure that effects or ¬ψ as outcome. We achieve that by weakening
the action a is still executable (if that was so) in all those the consequent of the laws in Ea− .
Finally, in order to get minimal change, we must ensure careful approach is to change the theory so that all action
that all literals in this ϕ-valuation that are not forced to laws remain the same in the contexts where the contracted
change in ¬ψ-worlds should be preserved. We do this by law is the case. In our example, if when contracting the law
stating an effect law of the form (ϕk ∧ℓ) → [a](ψ∨ℓ), where coffee → hot we are not sure whether buy is still executable
ϕk is the above ϕ-valuation. The reason why this is needed or not, we should weaken our executability laws specializ-
is clear: there can be several ¬ψ-valuations, and as far as we ing them to the context coffee → hot, and then make buy a
want at most one to be reachable from ϕk , we should force priori inexecutable in all ¬(coffee → hot) contexts.
it to be the one whose difference to ϕk is minimal.
Algorithm 3 below formalizes such an operation.
Again, the result will be a set of theories. Algorithm 2
below gives the operator. Algorithm 3 Contraction of a static law
input: T, ϕ
Algorithm 2 Contraction of an effect law output: T −ϕ /* a set of theories */
input: T, ϕ → [a]ψ if S |=
CPL
ϕ then
output: T −ϕ→[a]ψ /* a set of theories */
for all S − ∈ S ⊖ ϕ do
if T |= ϕ → [a]ψ then
PDL ((T \ S ) ∪ S − ) \ Xa ∪
for all π ∈ IP(S ∧ ϕ) do ′
T := {(ϕi ∧ ϕ) → hai⊤ : ϕi → hai⊤ ∈ Xa } ∪
for all A ⊆
V atm(π) do V {¬ϕ → [a]⊥}
ϕA := pi ∈atm(π) pi ∧ pi ∈atm(π) ¬pi
pi ∈A /
pi ∈A
T− − ′
ϕ := T ϕ ∪ {T }
if S 6|=
CPL
(π ∧ ϕA ) → ⊥ then else
for all π ′ ∈ IP(S ∧ ¬ψ) do T−ϕ := {T}
T ′ := (T \ Ea− ) ∪
{(ϕi ∧ ¬(π ∧ ϕA )) → [a]ψi : ϕi → [a]ψi ∈ Ea− } ∪ In our running example, contracting the law coffee → hot
{(ϕi ∧ π ∧ ϕA ) → [a](ψi ∨ π ′ ) : ϕi → [a]ψi ∈ Ea− } from T produces two theories, one of them is
for all L ⊆ Lit do
¬(¬token ∧ coffee ∧ ¬hot),
if S |= (π ∧ ϕA ) → ℓ∈L ℓ and S 6|= (π ′ ∧
V
(token ∧ coffee → hot) → hbuyi⊤,
CPL CPL
V
ℓ∈L ℓ) → ⊥ then
¬coffee → [buy]coffee, token → [buy]¬token,
for all ℓ ∈ L do ′
T1 =
if T 6|= (π ∧ ϕA ∧ ℓ) → [a]¬ℓ or ℓ ∈ π ′ ¬token → [buy]⊥, ¬token → [buy]¬token,
PDL
coffee → [buy]coffee, hot → [buy]hot,
then
T ′ := T ′ ∪ {(π ∧ ϕA ∧ ℓ) → [a](ψ ∨ ℓ)} (coffee ∧ ¬hot) → [buy]⊥
T− −
ϕ→[a]ψ = T ϕ→[a]ψ ∪ {T }
: ′
else Observe that the effect laws are not affected by the
T−ϕ→[a]ψ
:= {T} change: as far as we do not state executabilities for the new
world, all the effect laws remain true in it.
For instance, contracting the effect law token → [buy]hot If the knowledge engineer is not happy with the added in-
from T will give us three resulting theories, one of them is executability law (coffee∧¬hot) → [buy]⊥, she can contract
T1′ = it from the theory using Algorithm 2.
have |=
Mi V W′ = W ∪ {v} and R′ = R. To show that M ′ is a model
ℓj ∈u ℓj → [a]¬ℓ for every Mi ∈ M. Then of T ′ , it suffices to show that v satisfies every law in T ′ .
T |= (π ∧ ϕ A ∧ ℓ) → [a]¬ℓ, and Algorithm 2 has not put M′
PDL
the law (π ∧ ϕA ∧ ℓ) → [a](ψ ∨ ℓ) in T ′ , contradiction. As v ∈ val(S − ), |=
v
S − . Given ¬ϕ → [a]⊥ ∈ T ′ , as
M′
M′ ′ ′ v 6
ϕ and R′a (v) = ∅, |= ¬ϕ → [a]⊥. Now, for every
Hence we have |= ψ ∨ ℓ for every w ∈ W such that v
w′ M′ M′
(w, w′ ) ∈ R′a . ϕi → [a]ψi ∈ T ′ , if |= v
ϕi , then we trivially have |= v′
ψi
Putting the above results together, we get |= T ′ .
M′ for every v′ such that (v, v′ ) ∈ R′a . Finally, given (ϕi ∧ ϕ) →
hai⊤ ∈ T ′ , as v 6
ϕ, the formula trivially holds in v. Hence
Let now Φ be some propositional ϕ. Then M ′ = M′ M′
hW′ , R′ i, where W ⊆ W′ , R′ = R, is minimal w.r.t. M , i.e., |= T ′ , and because there is v ∈ W′ such that 6|= v
ϕ′ , we
′ ′ ′
W′ is a minimum superset of W such that there is u ∈ W′ have T 6|=PDL
ϕ , a contradiction. Hence for all ϕ ∈ Fml
′
with u 6
ϕ. Because we have assumed the syntactical clas- such that T |=PDL
ϕ′ , S − |=
CPL
ϕ′ , and then T ′ is modular.
sical contraction operator is correct w.r.t. its semantics and
is moreover minimal, then there must be S − ∈ S ⊖ ϕ such For the proof of the following three lemmas, please refer
′ − M′ − to (Varzinczak 2008a).
that W = val(S ). Hence |= S .
As R′ = R, every effect law of T remains true in M ′ .
Now, let Lemma 3 If Mbig = hWbig , Rbig i is a model of T, then
M
−
((T \ S ) ∪ S ) \ Xa ∪ for every M = hW, Ri such that |= T there is a mini-
′
T ′ = {(ϕi ∧ ϕ) → hai⊤ : ϕi → hai⊤ ∈ Xa } ∪ mal (w.r.t. set inclusion) extension R ⊆ Rbig \ R such that
{¬ϕ → [a]⊥} M ′ = hval(S ), R ∪ R′ i is a model of T.
(Clearly, T ′ is a theory produced by Algorithm 3.) Lemma 4 Let T be modular, and Φ be a law. Then T |= Φ
PDL
For every (ϕi ∧ ϕ) → hai⊤ ∈ T ′ and every w ∈ W′ , if if and only if every M ′ = hval(S ), R′ i such that |=
hW,Ri
T
M′ M
|=
w
ϕi ∧ ϕ, then Ra (w) 6= ∅, because |=
w
ϕi → hai⊤. Given and R ⊆ R′ is a model of Φ.
M′
¬ϕ → [a]⊥, for every w ∈ W′ , if |=
w
¬ϕ, then w = u, and
Ra (w) = ∅. Lemma 5 Let T be modular, Φ a law, and T ′ ∈ T − Φ . If
M ′ M ′ = hval(S ′ ), R′ i is a model of T ′ , then there is M =
Putting all these results together, we have |= T ′ . M
{M : M = hval(S ), Ri and |= T} such that M ′ ∈ M′
−
Appendix B: Proof of Theorem 5 for some M′ ∈ MΦ .
S 6|=
CPL
ϕ′ , and hence T is not modular.