Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning. In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a prioritized logic programming approach to handle defeasibilities in reasoning about action. In particular, we propose three action languages AT ^ 0 , AT ^ 1 and AT ^ 2 which handle three types of defeasibilities in action domains named defeasible constraints, defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects respectively. Each language with a higher superscript can be viewed as an extension of the language with a lower superscript. These action languages inherit the simple syntax of A language but their semantics is developed in terms of transition systems where transition functions are defined based on prioritized logic programs. By illustrating various examples, we show that our approach eventually provides a powerful mechanism to handle various defeasibilities in temporal prediction and postdiction. We also investigate semantic properties of these three action languages and characterize classes of action domains that present more desirable solutions in reasoning about action within the underlying action languages.
Although the work presented in @cite_2 provided a natural way to represent causality in reasoning about action, there were several restrictions in this action theory. First, due to technical restrictions, only normal defaults or defaults without justifications are the suitable forms to represent causal rules in problem domains. Second, this action theory did not handle the other two major defeasibilities - defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects.
@cite_2
2017479918
Recent research on reasoning about action has shown that the traditional logic form of domain constraints is problematic to represent ramifications of actions that are related to causality of domains. To handle this problem properly, as proposed by some researchers, it is necessary to describe causal relations of domains explicitly in action theories. In this paper, we address this problem from a new point of view. Specifically, unlike other researchers viewing causal relations as some kind of inference rules, we distinguish causal relations between defeasible and non-defeasible cases. It turns out that a causal theory in our formalism can be specified by using Reiter's default logic. Based on this idea, we propose a causality-based minimal change approach for representing effects of actions, and argue that our approach provides more plausible solutions for the ramification and qualification problems compared with other related work. We also describe a logic programming approximation to compute causal theories of actions which provides an implementational basis for our approach.