Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:18:35.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The application of logic programming to the generation of plans for robots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

R. H. Davis  and
M. Comacho
R. H. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, 79, Grassmarket, Edinburgh EMI 2HT (U.K.)
M. Comacho
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, 79, Grassmarket, Edinburgh EMI 2HT (U.K.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The previous paper by the same authors (Robotica 2, Part 2, pp. 93–103 1984) was concerned with the application of logic programming to the generation of paths for robots. This paper is dealing with the PIGS system for robot problem-solving in generating plans for robots. The system avoids the overhead of generating a new set of facts for each state considered. A computer-type control is adopted not only to generate a simple sequence of actions to be performed by the robot, but also to enable the robot to follow an accurately defined path. A suitable plan of action of a robot problem-solving system is generated. The system is written in the PROLOG language and acts as a robot plan generator that is integrated with a path finding procedure in order to avoid collisions whilst plans are being implemented.

Type
Article
Information
Robotica , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1984 , pp. 137 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Fikes, R.E. and Nilsson, N.J., “STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem-proving to problem-solving” Artificial Intelligence 2, 189–208 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Hewitt, C., “Description and theoretical analysis of PLANNER” AI Memo 251, MIT (1972).Google Scholar
3Bonner, S. and Shin, K.G., “A Comparative Study of Robot Languages” Computer IEEE 82–96 (1982).Google Scholar
4Camacho, M., “Robot Programming using Logic Programming” MSc Dissertation, Heriot-Watt University (10. 1983).Google Scholar
5Warren, D.H.D., “Implementing Prolog-Compiling Predicate Logic Programs” Tech. Reports No. 39 & 40, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, (1977).Google Scholar
6Gallaire, H., and Minker, J., Logic and Data Bases (Plenum Press, New York, 1978).Google Scholar
7Pereira, F.C.N. and Warren, D.C.D., “Definite Clause Grammars for Language Analysis” Artificial Intelligence 13, 231–278 (1980).Google Scholar
8Clark, K.L. and McCabe, F.G., “Prolog: A Language for Implementing Expert Systems” Dept. of Computing, Imperial College London (11., 1980).Google Scholar
9Markusz, Z., “Application of Prolog in Designing Many Storied Dwelling Houses” Logic Programming Workshop Debrecen, Hungary (14th–19th 07, 1980).Google Scholar
10Coelo, H., Cotta, J.C., and Pereira, L.M., “How to Solve it with Prolog”, Laboratorio Naeional de Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, Portugal (1980).Google Scholar
11Sussman, G.L. “HACKER: A Computational Model of Skill Acquisition” Ph.D. Thesis, MIT. (1973).Google Scholar