Planning with Natural Actions in the Situation Calculus

  • Fiora Pirri
  • Raymond Reiter
Part of the The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science book series (SECS, volume 597)


We describe the theory and implementation of a deductive planner in the situation calculus for domains with two kinds of actions:
  1. 1.

    “Free will” actions on the part of agents with the ability to perform or withold their actions, like choosing to pick up an object, or deciding to walk to some location.

  2. 2.

    Natural actions whose occurrence times are predictable in advance, in which case they must occur at those times unless something happens to prevent them, for example, objects moving under Newtonian laws, or trains arriving and departing in accordance with known schedules.


The theoretical basis for our planner is an extension of the situation calculus to accommodate continuous time and natural actions. The planner itself is patterned after that proposed by (Bacchus and Kabanza, 1995; Bacchus and Kabanza, 2000); it is a forward reasoning planner that filters out partial plans using domain and problem-specific information supplied by the user. The planner is implemented in ECLIPSE Prolog, and exploits that system’s built-in linear constraint solver to do temporal reasoning. We illustrate the planner’s workings on a space platform example that we fully axiomatize in the situation calculus.


Deductive planning natural actions situation calculus continuous time Golog constraint logic programming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bacchus, F. and Kabanza, F. (1995). Using temporal logic to control search in a forward chaining planner. In Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Planning.Google Scholar
  2. Bacchus, F. and Kabanza, F. (2000). Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence, 116(1–2): 123–191.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blazewicz, J., Lenstra, J., and Kan, A. R. (1983). Scheduling subject to resource constraints. Classification and complexity. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 5:11–24.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brucker, P., Drexl, A., Mehring, R., Neumann, K., and Pesch, E. (1999). Resource-constrained project scheduling: Notation, classification, models, and methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 29:262–273.Google Scholar
  5. Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. (1971). STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3/4): 189–208.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. (1993). STRIPS, a retrospective. Artificial Intelligence, 59(l/2):227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finzi, A., Pirri, F., and Reiter, R. (2000). Open world planning in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’00). To appear.Google Scholar
  8. Green, C. (1969). Theorem proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering systems. In Meltzer, B. and Michie, D., editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 183–205. American Elsevier, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Hartmann, and Kolisch, R. (1998a). Experimental evaluation of state-of-the-art heuristics for the resource-constrained project scheduling problem. Invited paper for the 1998 INFORMS spring conference, Cincinnati, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. Hartmann, and Kolisch, R. (1998b). Heuristic algorithms for solving the resource-constrained project scheduling problem: Classification and computational analysis. In Weglarz, J., editor, Recent Advances in Project Scheduling. Kluwer, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Levesque, H., Pirri, F., and Reiter, R. (1998). Foundations for the situation calculus. Linköping Electronic Articles in Computer and Information Science, 3(18).
  12. Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., and Scherl, R. (1997). GOLOG: a logic programming language for dynamic domains. J. of Logic Programming, Special Issue on Actions, 31(1–3):59–83.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Lloyd, J. (1987). Foundations of Logic Programming. Springer Verlag, second edition.Google Scholar
  14. McCarthy, J. (1963). Situations, actions and causal laws. Technical report, Stanford University. Reprinted in Semantic Information Processing (M. Minsky ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1968, pp. 410–417.Google Scholar
  15. Pirri, F. and Reiter, R. (1999). Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus. Journal of the ACM, 46(3):261–325.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Reiter, R. (1991). The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Lifschitz, V., editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359–380. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Reiter, R. (1996). Natural actions, concurrency and continuous time in the situation calculus. In Aiello, L., Doyle, J., and Shapiro, S., editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference (KR’96), pages 2–13. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Reiter, R. (1998). Sequential, temporal GOLOG. In Cohn, A. and Schubert, L., editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference (KR’98), pages 547–556. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Reiter, R. (1999). Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Describing and Implementing Dynamical Systems. In preparation. Draft available at Scholar
  20. Smith, D. and Weld, D. (1999). Temporal planning with mutual exclusion reasoning. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 326–333, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fiora Pirri
    • 1
  • Raymond Reiter
    • 2
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Informatica e SistemisticaUniversità degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”RomaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations