Advertisement

An A-Prolog Decision Support System for the Space Shuttle

  • Monica Nogueira
  • Marcello Balduccini
  • Michael Gelfond
  • Richard Watson
  • Matthew Barry
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1990)

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to test if a programming methodology based on the declarative language A-Prolog and the systems for computing answer sets of such programs, can be successfully applied to the development of medium size knowledge-intensive applications. We report on a successful design and development of such a system controlling some of the functions of the Space Shuttle.

Keywords

answer set programming logic programming planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    F. Bacchus and F. Kabanza. Planning for Temporally Extended Goals. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 22:1–2, 5-27, 1998.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Balduccini, M. Gelfond and M. Nogueira. A-Prolog as a tool for declarative programming. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’2000), 63–72, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Balduccini, M. Gelfond and M. Nogueira. Digital Circuits in A-Prolog. Technical Report, University of Texas at El Paso, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    M. Barry and R. Watson. Reasoning about actions for spacecraft redundancy management. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 5:101–112, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P. Cholewinski, W. Marek and M. Truszczyński. Default Reasoning System DeReS. In International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 518–528. Morgan Kauffman, 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S. Citrigno, T. Eiter, W. Faber, G. Gottlob, C. Koch, N. Leone, C. Mateis, G. Pfeifer and F. Scarcello. The dlv system: Model generator and application frontends. In Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Logic Programming, 128–137, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. De Micheli. Synthesis and Optimization of Digital Circuits. McGraw-Hill Series in Electrical and Computer Engineering, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Y. Dimopoulos, B. Nebel, and J. Koehler. Encoding planning problems in nonmonotonic logic programs. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence-Recent Advances in AI Planning, Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Planning, ECP’97, 1348:169–181, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    E. Erdem and V. Lifschitz. Transitive Closure, Answer Sets and Predicate Completion. Submitted for publication, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Finzi, F. Pirri and R. Reiter. Open World Planning in the Situation Calculus. 17th National Conference of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’00), 754–760, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    M. Gelfond and A. Gabaldon. From Functional Specifications to Logic Programs. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS’97), 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. The Stable Model Semantics for Logic Programs. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Logic Programming, 1070–1080, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Classical Negation in Logic Programs and Disjunctive Databases. New Generation Computing, 9(3/4):365–386, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Representing Actions and Change by Logic Programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–323, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz. Action languages. Electronic Transactions on AI, 3(16), 1998.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. Gelfond, and R. Watson. On methodology for representing knowledge in dynamic domains. In Proceedings of the 1998 ARO/ONR/NSF/DARPA Monterey Workshop on Engineering Automation for Computer Based Systems, 57–66, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Y. Huang, H. Kautz and B. Selman. Control Knowledge in Planning: Benefits and Tradeoffs. 16th National Conference of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’99), 511–517, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    H. Kautz and B. Selman. The Role of Domain-Specific Knowledge in the Planning as Satisfiability Framework. In Proceedings of AIPS’98, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Z. Kohavi. Switching and Finite Automata Theory. McGraw-Hill CS Series, 1978.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    V. Lifschitz. Action languages, Answer Sets, and Planning. In The Logic Programming Paradigm: a 25-Year Perspective, 357–373. Spring-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    N. McCain and H. Turner. A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In Proceedings of IJCAI’95, 1978–1984, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    N. McCain and H. Turner. Causal theories of action and change. In 14th National Conference of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’97), 460–465, 1997.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R. Moore. Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence, 25(1):75–94, 1985.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    I. Niemelä, and P. Simons. Smodels-an implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal logic programs. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Logic Programming and Non-Monotonic Reasoning, 420–429, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13(1,2):81–132, 1980.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    H. Turner. Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: A situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming, Vol. 31, No. 1–3, 245–298, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Watson. An application of action theory to the space shuttle. Lecture Notes in Computer Science-Procs of Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages’ 99, 1551:290–304, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica Nogueira
    • 1
  • Marcello Balduccini
    • 2
  • Michael Gelfond
    • 2
  • Richard Watson
    • 2
  • Matthew Barry
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceThe University of Texas at El PasoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTexas Tech UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Advanced Technology Development LabUnited Space AllianceUSA

Personalised recommendations