Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:41:32.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determining Action Reversibility in STRIPS Using Answer Set and Epistemic Logic Programming

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2021

WOLFGANG FABER Open the ORCID record for WOLFGANG FABER [Opens in a new window] ,
MICHAEL MORAK Open the ORCID record for MICHAEL MORAK [Opens in a new window]  and
LUKÁŠ CHRPA
WOLFGANG FABER
Affiliation:
University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
MICHAEL MORAK
Affiliation:
University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria (e-mails: [email protected], [email protected])
LUKÁŠ CHRPA
Affiliation:
Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic (e-mail: [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the context of planning and reasoning about actions and change, we call an action reversible when its effects can be reverted by applying other actions, returning to the original state. Renewed interest in this area has led to several results in the context of the PDDL language, widely used for describing planning tasks. In this paper, we propose several solutions to the computational problem of deciding the reversibility of an action. In particular, we leverage an existing translation from PDDL to Answer Set Programming (ASP), and then use several different encodings to tackle the problem of action reversibility for the STRIPS fragment of PDDL. For these, we use ASP, as well as Epistemic Logic Programming (ELP), an extension of ASP with epistemic operators, and compare and contrast their strengths and weaknesses.

Keywords

action reversibilityAnswer Set ProgrammingEpistemic Logic Programmingreasoning about action and change
Type
Original Article
Information
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming , Volume 21 , Issue 5: 37th International Conference on Logic Programming Special Issue I , September 2021 , pp. 646 - 662
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

*

This work is based on, and significantly extends, two workshop papers previously published by the authors at ASPOCP’20 and EELP’20 (Chrpa et al. 2020; Faber and Morak 2020).

References

Bylander, T. 1994. The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence 69, 1–2, 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camacho, A., Muise, C. J. and McIlraith, S. A. 2016. From FOND to robust probabilistic planning: Computing compact policies that bypass avoidable deadends. In Proc. ICAPS. 65–69.Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., Faber, W., Fišer, D. and Morak, M. 2020. Determining action reversibility in strips using answer set programming. In International Conference on Logic Programming 2020 Workshop Proceedings. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2678.Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., Faber, W. and Morak, M. 2021. Universal and uniform action reversibility. In Proc. KR. to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrpa, L., Lipovetzky, N. and Sardiña, S. 2017. Handling non-local dead-ends in agent planning programs. In Proc. IJCAI, 971–978.Google Scholar
Chrpa, L., McCluskey, T. L. and Osborne, H. 2012. Optimizing plans through analysis of action dependencies and independencies. In Proc. ICAPS.Google Scholar
Cserna, B., Doyle, W. J., Ramsdell, J. S. and Ruml, W. 2018. Avoiding dead ends in real-time heuristic search. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (AAAI-18), 1306–1313.Google Scholar
Daum, J., Torralba, Á., Hoffmann, J., Haslum, P. and Weber, I. 2016. Practical undoability checking via contingent planning. In Proc. ICAPS, 106–114.Google Scholar
De Giacomo, G., Gerevini, A. E., Patrizi, F., Saetti, A. and Sardiña, S. 2016. Agent planning programs. Artificial Intelligence 231, 64–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimopoulos, Y., Gebser, M., Lühne, P., Romero, J. and Schaub, T. 2019. plasp 3: Towards effective ASP planning. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 19, 3, 477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T., Erdem, E. and Faber, W. 2008. Undoing the effects of action sequences. Journal of Applied Logic 6, 3, 380–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eiter, T. and Gottlob, G. 1995. On the computational cost of disjunctive logic programming: Propositional case. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 15, 3–4, 289–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, W. and Morak, M. 2020. Determining action reversibility in STRIPS using epistemic logic programs. In International Conference on Logic Programming 2020 Workshop Proceedings. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2678.Google Scholar
Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. J. 1971. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2, 3/4, 189–208.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. 1991. Strong introspection. In Proc. AAAI, T. L. Dean and K. R. McKeown, Eds. AAAI Press/The MIT Press, 386–391.Google Scholar
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. 1991. Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9, 3/4, 365–386.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D. S. and Traverso, P. 2004. Automated Planning - Theory and Practice. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ghallab, M., Nau, D. S. and Traverso, P. 2016. Automated Planning and Acting. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipovetzky, N., Muise, C. J. and Geffner, H. 2016. Traps, invariants, and dead-ends. In Proc. ICAPS. 211–215.Google Scholar
Morak, M., Chrpa, L., Faber, W. and Fišer, D. 2020. On the reversibility of actions in planning. In Proc. KR. 652–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truszczynski, M. 2011. Revisiting epistemic specifications. In Logic Programming, Knowledge Representation, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning - Essays Dedicated to Michael Gelfond on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, M. Balduccini and T. C. Son, Eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6565. Springer, 315–333.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Faber supplementary material

Faber supplementary material

Download Faber supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 105.5 KB