Towards an Expressive Practical Logical Action Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the area of reasoning about actions, one of the key computational problems is the projection problem: to find whether a given logical formula is true after performing a sequence of actions. This problem is undecidable in the general situation calculus; however, it is decidable in some fragments. We consider a fragment P of the situation calculus and Reiter's basic action theories (BAT) such that the projection problem can be reduced to the satisfiability problem in an expressive description logic $ALCO(U)$ that includes nominals ($O$), the universal role ($U$), and constructs from the well-known logic $ALC$. It turns out that our fragment P is more expressive than previously explored description logic based fragments of the situation calculus. We explore some of the logical properties of our theories. In particular, we show that the projection problem can be solved using regression in the case where BATs include a general ``static" TBox, i.e., an ontology that has no occurrences of fluents. Thus, we propose seamless integration of traditional ontologies with reasoning about actions. We also show that the projection problem can be solved using progression if all actions have only local effects on the fluents, i.e., in P, if one starts with an incomplete initial theory that can be transformed into an $ALCO(U)$ concept, then its progression resulting from execution of a ground action can still be expressed in the same language. Moreover, we show that for a broad class of incomplete initial theories progression can be computed efficiently.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".