We call A the database or base set of beliefs of the system. Consider, for example, the following sentence about birds: "All In this chapter, we explore three methods. These methods have several potential applications. We define the effects of the CWA in terms of customary logical notation. We call our belief set, A, the proper axioms of a theory. T[A] by adding a set, Aasm, of assumed beliefs. CWA adds'IQ (B), since A does not logically entail U(B). The CWA often is used with database systems. The following example shows that it does not. Let A contain only the clause P(A) V P(B) . THEOREM 6.1 CWA[A] is consistent if and only if, for every positive-- Proof CWA[A] can be inconsistent only if A U A,"m is.

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

We address the problem of designing programming systems to reason with and about constraints. Taking a logic programming approach, we define a class of programming languages, the CLP languages, all of which share the same essential semantic properties. From a conceptual point of view, CLP programs are highly declarative and are soundly based within a unified framework of formal semantics. This framework not only subsumes that of logic programming, but satisfies the core properties of logic programs more naturally. From a user's point of view, CLP programs have great expressive power due to the constraints which they naturally manipulate.

In AAAI-87.

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity.

In this paper, the reasoning and planning capabilities of an autonomous mobile robot are described; The reasoning system that controls the robot is designed to exhibit the kind of behavior expected of a rational agent, and is endowed with the psychological attitudes of belief, desire, and intention. Because these attitudes are explicitly represented, they can be manipulated and reasoned about, resulting in complex goal-directed and reflective behaviors. Unlike most planning systems, the plans or intentions formed by the robot need only be partly elaborated before it decides to act. This allows the robot to avoid overly strong expectations about the environment, overly constrained plans of action, and other forms of overcommitment common to previous planners. In addition, the robot is continuously reactive and has the ability to change its goals and intentions as situations warrant. The system has been tested with SRI's autonomous robot (Flakey) in a space station scenario involving navigation and the performance of emergency tasks. 1

In Automatic Control—World Congress, 1987: Selected Papers from the 10th Triennial World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control, pp. 221–226.

Computational Intelligence, 3 (2), 78-93.

AI Magazine, 3

This paper describes a domain-independent implementation of explanation-based generalization (EBG) within a logic-programming environment. Explanation is interleaved with generalization, so that as the training instance is proven to be a positive example of the goal concept, the generalization is simultaneously created. All aspects of the EBG task are viewed in logic, which provides a clear semantics for EBG, and allows its integration into the logic-programming system. In this light operationally becomes a property requiring explicit reasoning. Additionally, viewing EBG in logic clarifies the relation of learning search-control to EBG, and suggests solutions for dealing with imperfect domain theories.