In a seminal paper, Lin and Reiter introduced a model-theoretic definition for the progression of a basic action theory in the situation calculus, and proved that it implies the intended properties. They also showed that this definition comes with a strong negative result, namely that for certain cases first-order logic is not expressive enough to correctly characterize the progressed theory and second-order axioms are necessary. However, they also considered an alternative simpler definition according to which the progressed theory is always first-order definable. They conjectured that this alternative definition is incorrect in the sense that the progressed theory is too weak and may sometimes lose information. This conjecture and the status of the definability of progression in first-order logic has remained open since. In this paper we present two significant results about this alternative definition of progression. First, we prove the Lin and Reiter conjecture by presenting a case where the progressed theory indeed does lose information, thus closing a question that has remained open for more than ten years. Second, we prove that the alternative definition is nonetheless correct for reasoning about a large class of sentences, including some that quantify over situations. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

How to progress a database III / Vassos, Stavros; Hector J., Levesque. - In: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. - ISSN 0004-3702. - 195:(2013), pp. 203-221. [10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.005]

How to progress a database III

VASSOS, STAVROS;
2013

Abstract

In a seminal paper, Lin and Reiter introduced a model-theoretic definition for the progression of a basic action theory in the situation calculus, and proved that it implies the intended properties. They also showed that this definition comes with a strong negative result, namely that for certain cases first-order logic is not expressive enough to correctly characterize the progressed theory and second-order axioms are necessary. However, they also considered an alternative simpler definition according to which the progressed theory is always first-order definable. They conjectured that this alternative definition is incorrect in the sense that the progressed theory is too weak and may sometimes lose information. This conjecture and the status of the definability of progression in first-order logic has remained open since. In this paper we present two significant results about this alternative definition of progression. First, we prove the Lin and Reiter conjecture by presenting a case where the progressed theory indeed does lose information, thus closing a question that has remained open for more than ten years. Second, we prove that the alternative definition is nonetheless correct for reasoning about a large class of sentences, including some that quantify over situations. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2013
artificial intelligence; first-order databases; knowledge representation; reasoning about action; reasoning about action and change; situation calculus
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
How to progress a database III / Vassos, Stavros; Hector J., Levesque. - In: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. - ISSN 0004-3702. - 195:(2013), pp. 203-221. [10.1016/j.artint.2012.10.005]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/508107
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact