Skip to main content

Planning with Transaction Logic

  • Conference paper
Web Reasoning and Rule Systems (RR 2014)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 8741))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Automated planning has been the subject of intensive research and is at the core of several areas of AI, including intelligent agents and robotics. In this paper, we argue that Transaction Logic is a natural specification language for planning algorithms, which enables one to see further afield and thus discover better and more general solutions than using one-of-a-kind formalisms. Specifically, we take the well-known \({\textit{STRIPS}}\) planning strategy and show that Transaction Logic lets one specify the \({\textit{STRIPS}}\) planning algorithm easily and concisely, and to prove its completeness. Moreover, extensions to allow indirect effects and to support action ramifications come almost for free. Finally, the compact and clear logical formulation of the algorithm made possible by this logic is conducive to fruitful experimentation. To illustrate this, we show that a rather simple modification of the \({\textit{STRIPS}}\) planning strategy is also complete and yields speedups of orders of magnitude.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Becker, M.Y., Nanz, S.: A logic for state-modifying authorization policies. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 13(3), 20:1–20:28 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bibel, W.: A deductive solution for plan generation. New Generation Computing 4(2), 115–132 (1986)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bibel, W.: A deductive solution for plan generation. In: Schmidt, J.W., Thanos, C. (eds.) Foundations of Knowledge Base Management. Topics in Information Systems, pp. 453–473. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Bibel, W., del Cerro, L.F., Fronhöfer, B., Herzig, A.: Plan generation by linear proofs: On semantics. In: Metzing, D. (ed.) 13th German Workshop on Artificial Intelligence, Informatik-Fachberichte, GWAI 1989, vol. 216, pp. 49–62. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming. In: Int’l Conference on Logic Programming, pp. 257–282. MIT Press, Budapest (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Applications of transaction logic to knowledge representation. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) ICTL 1994. LNCS, vol. 827, pp. 67–81. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic programming (or a logic of declarative and procedural knowledge). Tech. Rep. CSRI-323, University of Toronto (November 1995), http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bonner/transaction-logic.html

  8. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: Concurrency and communication in transaction logic. In: Joint Int’l Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, pp. 142–156. MIT Press, Bonn (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bonner, A., Kifer, M.: A logic for programming database transactions. In: Chomicki, J., Saake, G. (eds.) Logics for Databases and Information Systems, ch. 5, pp. 117–166. Kluwer Academic Publishers (March 1998)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bonner, A.J., Kifer, M.: An overview of transaction logic. Theoretical Computer Science 133 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cresswell, S., Smaill, A., Richardson, J.: Deductive synthesis of recursive plans in linear logic. In: Biundo, S., Fox, M. (eds.) ECP 1999. LNCS, vol. 1809, pp. 252–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2(3-4), 189–208 (1971)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Fodor, P., Kifer, M.: Tabling for transaction logic. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, PPDP 2010, pp. 199–208. ACM, New York (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: Dependent fluents. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1964–1969 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Guglielmi, A.: Concurrency and plan generation in a logic programming language with a sequential operator. In: Hentenryck, P.V. (ed.) ICLP, pp. 240–254. MIT Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hölldobler, S., Schneeberger, J.: A new deductive approach to planning. New Generation Computing 8(3), 225–244 (1990)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Kahramanogullari, O.: Towards planning as concurrency. In: Hamza, M.H. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp. 387–393. IASTED/ACTA Press (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kahramanogullari, O.: On linear logic planning and concurrency. Information and Computation 207(11), 1229–1258 (2009); Special Issue: Martín-Vide, C., Otto, F., Fernau, H. (eds.): LATA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5196. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lifschitz, V.: On the semantics of strips. In: Georgeff, M. (ed.) Lansky, Amy (eds, pp. 1–9. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Nau, D., Ghallab, M., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nilsson, N.: Principles of Artificial Intelligence. Tioga Publ. Co., Paolo Alto (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rezk, M., Kifer, M.: Transaction logic with partially defined actions. J. Data Semantics 1(2), 99–131 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Srivastava, S., Immerman, N., Zilberstein, S., Zhang, T.: Directed search for generalized plans using classical planners. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2011). AAAI (June 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Swift, T., Warren, D.: Xsb: Extending the power of prolog using tabling. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thielscher, M.: Computing ramifications by postprocessing. In: IJCAI, pp. 1994–2000. Morgan Kaufmann (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Thielscher, M.: Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence 89(1-2), 317–364 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Basseda, R., Kifer, M., Bonner, A.J. (2014). Planning with Transaction Logic. In: Kontchakov, R., Mugnier, ML. (eds) Web Reasoning and Rule Systems. RR 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8741. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11113-1_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11113-1_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-11112-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-11113-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics