next up previous
Next: ELABORATION TOLERANT REASONING Up: Combining Narratives Previous: Combining Narratives


The logical approach to AI ([McC59] and [McC89]) is to make a computer program that represents what it knows about the world in general, what it knows about the situation it is in, and also its goals, all as sentences in some mathematical logical language. The program then infers logically what action is appropriate for achieving its goal and does it. Since 1980 it has been widely known that non-monotonic inference must be included. The actions our program can perform include some that generate sentences by other means than logical inference, e.g. by observation of the world or by the use of special purpose non-logical problem solvers.

Simpler behaviors, e.g. actions controlled by servomechanisms or reflexes can be integrated with logic. The actions decided on by logic can include adjusting the parameters of ongoing reflexive actions. Thus a person can decide to walk faster when he reasons that otherwise he will be late, but this does not require that reason control each step of the walking.gif

Situation calculus is an aspect of the logic approach to AI. A situation is a snapshot of the world at some instant. Situations are richgif objects in that it is not possible to completely describe a situation, only to say some things about it. From facts about situations and general laws about the effects of actions and other events, it is possible to infer something about future situations. Situation calculus was first discussed in [McC63], but [MH69] was the first widely read paper about it.

In this formalization of action in situation calculus, there are at least three kinds of problem--narrative, planning and prediction. Of these, narrative seems to be the simplest for humans. A narrative is an account of what happened. We treat it by giving some situations and some events and some facts about them and their relations. Situations in a narrative are partially ordered in time. The real situations are totally orderedgif, but the narrative may not include full information about this ordering. Thus the temporal relations between situations need only be described to the extent needed to describe their interactions. Situations occurring entirely in different places give the most obvious examples, but even actions by the same person in the same place may not interact as far as the inferences we draw. If we state that the traveler on certain flight reads a book and also drinks a Coca-cola, we humans don't need to know any temporal relations between the two events unless they interact.

In situation calculus as it was originally envisaged (and has been used,) events (mainly actions) in a situation produce next situations, e.g. tex2html_wrap_inline663 . The original theory did not envisage more than one event occurring in a situation, and it did not envisage intermediate situations in which events occur. However, rarely did people write axioms that forbadegif these possibilities; it's just that no-one took advantage of them.

Our present formalism doesn't really change the basic formalism of the situation calculus much; it just takes advantage of the fact that the original formalism allows treating concurrent events even though concurrent events were not originally supposed to be treatable in that formalism. Gelfond, Lifschitz and Rabinov [GLR91] treat concurrent events in a different way from what we propose here.

In a narrative, it is not necessary that what is said to hold in a situation be a logical consequence (even non-monotonically) of what was said to hold about a previous situation and known common sense facts about the effects of events. In the first place, in stories new facts about situations are often added, e.g. ``When Benjamin Franklin arrived in London it was raining''. In the second place, we can have an event like tossing a coin in which neither outcome has even a non-monotonic preference.gif

In interpreting the following formalizations, we regard situations as rich objects and events as poor. In fact, we are inclined to take a deterministic view within any single narrative. In principle, every event that occurs in a situation and every fact about following situations is an inevitable consequence of the facts about the situation. Thus it is a fact about a situation that a coin is tossed and that it comes up tails. However, such facts are only occasionally consequences of the facts about the situation that we are aware of in the narrative.

Perhaps narrative seems easy, since it is not yet clear what facts must be included in a narrative and what assertions should be inferable from a narrative. We have however a basic model that handles some of the more basic features.

next up previous
Next: ELABORATION TOLERANT REASONING Up: Combining Narratives Previous: Combining Narratives

John McCarthy
Thu Jul 8 18:10:07 PDT 1999