- 4291
- Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
- Enunciados Nomológicos y Condicionales Contrafácticos - D'Alessio
- Analysis - Wikipedia.pdf
- eng 107 2 8 2016 tesol observation field notes
- Cort.teachershandbook
- Law and Logic Summer School 2017 Programme
- Said Mch
- 001 Logics i
- Math 140 Course Syllabus 2015-2016-1T
- crosscurricularwritingrubricsb
- Law and Logic Summer School 2018 Provisional Programme
- Akreditasi Internasional ABET Teknik Informatika
- 001 Logics i
- 2014ADM_A1
- Basic Computing Customization of Traceability Tractability
- Intro
- Introduction to Probability
- Lesson%2011.pdf
- Using (Buy, Sellt) Pair Dynamics to Operate Wait Dealy
- Ass Ate Iany
- Propositional Logic
- Basic Computing Customization of Traceability Tractability
- Calculus -raj jain
- esslli2013wj
- bpj lesson 8-2
- I Think Therefore I Laugh - Review
- Clustering of Personality using Indeterminacy Based Personality Test
- 001 Logics i
- bpj lesson 8
- hw1soln
- Bai Giang Tri Tuen Han Tao
- JavaAI3rd
- Chiến-lược-về-phân-phối
- Idoc.vn Lap Trinh c Chuong 10 Cay Nhieu Nhanh
- Assign 12012
- Phong Cach Lap Trinh-C++
- PrologFF

and goals are declaratively speciﬁed in logic and generally concerns performing actions in the real world.

**•By “opening up” the representation of states, goals, and actions
**

(instead of treating them as black boxes) a planner can make more direct connections between them.

Talk to Parrot

Planning

Start

Go To Pet Store

Buy a Dog

Go To School

Go To Class

Go To Supermarket

Buy Tuna Fish

Go To Sleep

Buy Arugula

Read A Book

Buy Milk

...

Finish

Sit in Chair

Sit Some More

Etc. Etc. ...

...

Read A Book

**•Frequently, subgoals are independent and problems can be
**

solved by divide and conquer.

1

2

Sample Problem Blocks World Initial state A B C

**Situation Calculus • Formalization of actions in ﬁrst-order logic (McCarthy &
**

Hayes, 1969). Search performed by logical inference.

•Situations are logical terms denoting states of the world. •Actions and facts are represented as logical terms called

ﬂuents. puton(A,B): The action of putting block A on block B. on(A,B): The proposition that block A is on block B.

Goal State A B

**•Propositional ﬂuents are asserted to be true in a particular
**

state by using the predicate: holds holds(on(A,B), s): A is on B in situation s

**•Situations resulting from performing an action in another C
**

situation are represented using the function: result result(puton(A,B), s): The situation resulting from putting A on B in situation s.

3

4

neq(table.b).Y).S).S).c).result(puton(A. prove a theorem of the following form to construct a plan for initial state ϕ and goal ψ: ∀s[holds(ϕ. holds(clear(B).B).s) → holds(color(x. z= result(puton(A.b). neq(Y.result(puton(B.result(puton(A.c).S)) :holds(clear(A).B).z) ∧ reachable(z. ∀s∀x∀y∀c[holds(color(x.s) → ∃z(holds(on(A.S)) :holds(clear(A). plan(Gs.s) → holds(on(x.result(puton(A.S).S).B).S) :reachable(S1.z) ∧ reachable(z. holds(clear(table). neq(b. neq(a. neq(c.S). holds(clear(C)._).y).s) ∧ holds(clear(y).a). plan([G1|Gs].B).table). neq(table.B).s))] •For goal of having A on B when initially both are on the table: ∀s[holds(on(A.b). reachable(S.c).S). Situation Calculus Planner plan([]. holds(clear(B). holds(clear(X).S)) :holds(on(X._S).A).s) ∧ holds(on(B. S0. result(puton(x.s) → ∃z(holds(ψ.y). S0.c).a).Situation Calculus (cont) •Axioms used to represent preconditions and effects of actions.B).C). ∀s∀x∀y[holds(clear(x).S).S).B).S)) :holds(clear(X).s))] •These are called frame axioms and the fact that so many must be provided is called the frame problem. what will happen if we try to make plans using normal Prolog depth-ﬁrst search? 7 8 .table). holds(on(X.c). S).B). must also explicitly state what does not change when an action is performed. neq(c.result(puton(x.s)] •However. neq(a. •Approach ﬁrst implemented by Green (1969) 5 6 Situation Calculus in Prolog holds(on(A.y). neq(table.B).B). neq(A.C).a).S). neq(a.Table).Y). neq(X.S1).Table). However.s) z = result(puton(A._.A). neq(A.B). neq(b.result(puton(_A. reachable(S.table). reachable(result(_. neq(X.S). •Need a constructive prove that produces a value for z that represents a plan. holds(on(A. S) :holds(G1.B).s)) ] Deductive Planning •For situation calculus. neq(b.S0).s)) •Other more sophisticated logics such as temporal and modal logics have also been developed for reasoning about actions. neq(c. neq(A.

s0). holds(on(c.cpu_time(db_prove(6. ?.result(puton(c.b).table). must all be included in the delete list although these deletions are implied by the fact of adding Dead(y) 11 12 .table).T). s0).T = 7.table).table).z) Add List: {On(x. s0).on(b.c).765935E+04 7. holds(on(c.cpu_time(db_prove(6.T ).table).b).b). S= result(puton(a. holds(on(b. Let’s try a simple four block stack. 1971).on(a. s0). Delete list: List of formulae that become false as result of the action.table).5 hours! •Invert stack holds(on(a. holds(clear(a).plan([on(a.z) must be false.c).b)].s0).y) must put Alive(y).S)).s0))).S)).c).c). s0).on(c.s0).result(puton(b.table). T = 2.s0. S= result(puton(a. Precondition: logical formula that must be true in order to execute the action.b).034E+00 9 10 STRIPS •Developed at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) in early 1970’s.b). holds(clear(d). holds(on(b. s0).s0).y) Precondition: Clear(x) ∧ Clear(y) ∧ On(x. s0). s0).b). holds(clear(c). s0).b).plan([on(b.on(a. Add list: List of formulae that become true as a result of the action. holds(on(c.c).3433E+01 Situation Calculus Results (Cont) •O.c)]. s0). etc. (Fikes & Nilsson. For action Kill(x. s0). Breathing(y). Puton(x. HeartBeating(y).result(puton(a. On(x.s0. S= result(puton(a.Situation Calculus Results • Stack of 3 blocks holds(on(a.y). | ?cpu_time(db_prove(7. Clear(z)} Delete List: {Clear(y).result(puton(b. it must still be listed in the delete list explicitly.plan([on(b.s0))) . holds(clear(a). holds(on(b. s0).table). •Introduced STRIPS action representation. | ?. s0). T).s0.result(puton(b. holds(clear(c).K.s0). STRIPS Representation •Attempt to address the frame problem by deﬁning actions by a precondition.a).table).result(puton(c.d). •STRIPS assumption: Every formula that is satisﬁed before an action is performed and does not belong to the delete list is satisﬁed in the resulting state.s0))) T = 1.S)). holds(clear(b). •Combines ideas from problem solving and theorem proving. and a delete list.d)]. holds(on(d. holds(clear(c).z)} •Just using theorem proving with situation calculus was found to be too inefﬁcient. Although Clear(z) implies that On(x. •Basic backward chaining in state space but solves subgoals independently and then tries to reachieve any clobbered subgoals at the end. holds(on(a. and add list.

C) without undoing (clobbering) subgoal: on(A. cannot do puton(B. A B C Either way of ordering the subgoals causes clobbering. C A B B C A D B A B C B A C D A B B C A B C D A B C A B C D If do puton(B. B A B C •Pick a subgoal to solve and an operator that will achieve that subgoal. A B B C •Add the precondition of this operator as a new goal and recursively solve it. use the incomplete proof to ﬁnd a set of differences between the current and goal state (a set of subgoals). no problem.Subgoal Independence •If the goal state is a conjunction of subgoals. 15 16 .B) ﬁrst. If do puton(A. the order in which subgoals are solved in this case is important. B C A B •If it is not.C) ﬁrst. search is simpliﬁed if goals are assumed independent and solved separately (divide and conquer) Subgoal Interaction Achieving different subgoals may interact.B) 13 14 Sussman Anomoly C A STRIPS Approach •Use resolution theorem prover to try and prove that goal or subgoal is statisﬁed in the current state.

when reach dead-end.t.. •I modiﬁed to to try and reachieve any clobbered subgoals (only once). Norvig’s Implementation •Simple propositional (no variables) Lisp implementation of STRIPS. goal ∈ adds(op). ops) Let current-state be init-state. goals. . Invert stack (good goal ordering) > (gps ’((a on b)(b on c) (c on table) (space on a) (space on table)) ’((b on a) (c on b))) Goal: (B ON A) Consider: (MOVE B FROM C TO A) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (A ON B) Action: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (B ON C) Action: (MOVE B FROM C TO A) Goal: (C ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (C ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM C TO A)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B))) 19 20 .. Apply operator current-state := current-state + adds(op) . For each goal in goals do If goal cannot be proven in current state Pick an operator instance. #S(OP ACTION (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) PRECONDS ((SPACE ON C) (SPACE ON B) (C ON TABLE)) ADD-LIST ((EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B)) (C ON B)) DEL-LIST ((C ON TABLE) (SPACE ON B))) •Commits to ﬁrst sequence of actions that achieves a subgoal (incomplete search). backtrack to last decision point and pursue the next option.. preconds(op).dels(ops). •Prefers actions with the most preconditions satisﬁed in the current state. . The “pick operator instance” step involves a nondeterministic choice that is backtracked to if a dead-end is ever encountered. . Employs chronological backtracking (depth-ﬁrst search). Invert stack (bad goal ordering) > (gps ’((a on b)(b on c) (c on table) (space on a) (space on table)) ’((c on b)(b on a))) Goal: (C ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Consider: (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (A ON B) Action: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (B ON C) Action: (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (C ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (B ON A) Consider: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO A) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (C ON B) Action: (MOVE C FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (B ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO A) C B A goal . Solve preconditions STRIPS(current-state. STRIPS(current-state. ops). 17 18 STRIPS Results A B C initial More STRIPS Results . s. ops).STRIPS Algorithm STRIPS(init-state. op. Patch any clobbered goals Let rgoals be any goals which are not provable in current-state. rgoals.

M) ﬁrst to save the 1 value for later use by Assign(N.Must reachieve clobbered goals: ((C ON B)) Goal: (C ON B) Consider: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (C ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B) ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO A)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO B))) STRIPS on the Sussman Anomaly > (gps ’((c on a)(a on table)( b on table) (space on c) (space on b) (space on table)) ’((a on b)(b on c))) Goal: (A ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Consider: (MOVE C FROM A TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (C ON A) Action: (MOVE C FROM A TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (A ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (B ON C) Consider: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON TABLE) Goal: (A ON B) Action: (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE) Goal: (SPACE ON C) Goal: (B ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C) Must reachieve clobbered goals: ((A ON B)) Goal: (A ON B) Consider: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) Goal: (SPACE ON A) Goal: (SPACE ON B) Goal: (A ON TABLE) Action: (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B) ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM A TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B))) 21 22 Larger Problems How long do four block problems take? . Operator: Assign(X.1) STRIPS will ﬁrst do Assign(M. .. •Consider the problem of switching the contents of two program variables.Y) Preconditions: Value(X. Value(Y. then it is unable to achieve Value(N. Stack four clear blocks (good goal ordering) > (time (gps ’((a on table)(b on table) (c on table) (d on table)(space on a) (space on b) (space on c) (space on d)(space on table)) ’((c on d)(b on c)(a on b)))) User Run Time = 0.00 seconds ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO D)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B))) A Problem STRIPS Cannot Solve •Due to the “hack” used to solve clobbered goals.N) to achieve Value(M.1).0). however. Need the “white knight” action Assign(L.0).B) Initial state: Value(M. Value(N. Stack four clear blocks (bad goal ordering) > (time (gps ’((a on table)(b on table) (c on table) (d on table)(space on a) (space on b) (space on c) (space on d)(space on table)) ’((a on b)(b on c) (c on d)))) User Run Time = 0.1) since the 1 value has already been lost. Value(N.2) Goal state: Value(M.A) Add List: Value(X.06 seconds ((START) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM C TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE C FROM TABLE TO D)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM B TO TABLE)) (EXECUTING (MOVE B FROM TABLE TO C)) (EXECUTING (MOVE A FROM TABLE TO B))) 23 24 .B) Delete List: Value(X. Of course the other goal ordering has an analagous problem. Value(L.0).L).A).. STRIPS cannot even solve certain problems.

B) clobber on(B.Partial-Order Planners •Don’t commit to ordering of actions until necessary by allowing partially ordered plans.Table) clear(C) clear(Table) Clobberer must come after cloberee B initial C A A B C goal 25 . clobber on(A.C) clear(B) clear(C) puton(A.B) clear(A) clear(B) puton(C.C) puton(B.

- 4291Uploaded byPURUSHOTHAMAN
- Various Essays in Logic and Logical PositivismUploaded byAnthony Fejfar
- Enunciados Nomológicos y Condicionales Contrafácticos - D'AlessioUploaded byRubén
- Analysis - Wikipedia.pdfUploaded byAnonymous yUSyPASzZ
- eng 107 2 8 2016 tesol observation field notesUploaded byapi-306853222
- Cort.teachershandbookUploaded byHitesh Parmar
- Law and Logic Summer School 2017 ProgrammeUploaded byFrancesca Lagioia
- Said MchUploaded bysfofoby
- 001 Logics iUploaded bysfofoby
- Math 140 Course Syllabus 2015-2016-1TUploaded byIya Fruto
- crosscurricularwritingrubricsbUploaded byapi-165776946
- Law and Logic Summer School 2018 Provisional ProgrammeUploaded byGiovanni Sartor
- Akreditasi Internasional ABET Teknik InformatikaUploaded byronzp
- 001 Logics iUploaded bysfofoby
- 2014ADM_A1Uploaded byMinjuPark
- Basic Computing Customization of Traceability TractabilityUploaded bysfofoby
- IntroUploaded byAurangzeb Chaudhary
- Introduction to ProbabilityUploaded byNghia Dam
- Lesson%2011.pdfUploaded by1ona1
- Using (Buy, Sellt) Pair Dynamics to Operate Wait DealyUploaded bysfofoby
- Ass Ate IanyUploaded byace3ace
- Propositional LogicUploaded byZian Kabir
- Basic Computing Customization of Traceability TractabilityUploaded bysfofoby
- Calculus -raj jainUploaded byB.rajkumar Jain
- esslli2013wjUploaded byLaura Ana Maria Bostan
- bpj lesson 8-2Uploaded byapi-307094458
- I Think Therefore I Laugh - ReviewUploaded byfjdjfsjsjsjgfsfs
- Clustering of Personality using Indeterminacy Based Personality TestUploaded byscience2010
- 001 Logics iUploaded bysfofoby
- bpj lesson 8Uploaded byapi-307093549

- hw1solnUploaded byxuanduc939
- Bai Giang Tri Tuen Han TaoUploaded byxuanduc939
- JavaAI3rdUploaded byxuanduc939
- Chiến-lược-về-phân-phốiUploaded byxuanduc939
- Idoc.vn Lap Trinh c Chuong 10 Cay Nhieu NhanhUploaded byxuanduc939
- Assign 12012Uploaded byxuanduc939
- Phong Cach Lap Trinh-C++Uploaded byxuanduc939
- PrologFFUploaded byxuanduc939