Abstract
In this paper we address the problem of commonsense reasoning about action by appealing to Occam’s razor – we should accept the simplest hypothesis explaining the observed phenomena – to generalise the commonsense law of inertia. In particular, we identify the intended interpretation of an action as the simplest transformation induced by an action on a world to produce a possible successor. We formalise the notion of simplicity of a transformation as its conditional Kolmogorov complexity. Finally we show that the framework can solve simple commonsense reasoning problems and indicate its role as a first step towards capturing commonsense notions of causation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
McCain, N., Turner, H.: A causal theory of ramifications and qualifications. In: Mellish, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1978–1984. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)
Pagnucco, M., Peppas, P.: Causality and minimal change demystified. In: Nebel, B. (ed.) Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Seattle, Washington, vol. 1, pp. 125–130. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2001)
Hanks, S., McDermott, D.: Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence 33, 379–412 (1987)
McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In: Meltzer, B., Michie, D. (eds.) Machine Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (1969)
Shanahan, M.: Solving the frame problem. MIT Press, Cambridge (1997)
McCarthy, J.: Circumscription – a form of nonmonotonic reasoning. Artificial Intelligence 13, 27–39 (1980)
Li, M., Vitnayi, P.: An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1997)
Solomonoff, R.: A formal theory of inductive inference. Part I. Information and Control 7, 1–22 (1964)
Lin, F.: Embracing causality in specifying the indirect effects of actions. In: Mellish, C. (ed.) Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1985–1991. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)
Thielscher, M.: Ramification and causality. Artificial Intelligence 89, 317–364 (1997)
Sandewall, E.: Transition cascade semantics and first assessments results for ramification, preliminary report. Technical Report R-96-19, Department of CIS, Linköping University, Sweden (1996)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Jauregui, V., Pagnucco, M., Foo, N. (2004). On the Intended Interpretations of Actions. In: Zhang, C., W. Guesgen, H., Yeap, WK. (eds) PRICAI 2004: Trends in Artificial Intelligence. PRICAI 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 3157. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28633-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-28633-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-22817-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-28633-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive