Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ján Senko

dblp:15/3423 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
8ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 7Theory of computation · 4Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 3

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
3 papers
Knowledge representation and reasoning · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Computational complexity · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change
action domain update
0.222010
Updating action domain descriptions · Artif. Intell. 2010
Updating Action Domain Descriptions · IJCAI 2005
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning › reasoning about action and change › reasoning about actions
action languages
0.112010
Updating action domain descriptions · Artif. Intell. 2010
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
nonmonotonic reasoning
0.112010
Updating action domain descriptions · Artif. Intell. 2010
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
reasoning about action and change
0.112010
Updating action domain descriptions · Artif. Intell. 2010
Computational complexity
decision problems
0.012010
Updating action domain descriptions · Artif. Intell. 2010

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

preference relations · 0.2divide-and-conquer · 0.2heuristic approach · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 Updating action domain descriptions
abstract
Incorporating new information into a knowledge base is an important problem which has been widely investigated. In this paper, we study this problem in a formal framework for reasoning about actions and change. In this framework, action domains are described in an action language whose semantics is based on the notion of causality. Unlike the formalisms considered in the related work, this language allows straightforward representation of non-deterministic effects and indirect effects of (possibly concurrent) actions, as well as state constraints; therefore, the updates can be more general than elementary statements. The expressivity of this formalism allows us to study the update of an action domain description with a more general approach compared to related work. First of all, we consider the update of an action description with respect to further criteria, for instance, by ensuring that the updated description entails some observations, assertions, or general domain properties that constitute further constraints that are not expressible in an action description in general. Moreover, our framework allows us to discriminate amongst alternative updates of action domain descriptions and to single out a most preferable one, based on a given preference relation possibly dependent on the specified criteria. We study semantic and computational aspects of the update problem, and establish basic properties of updates as well as a decomposition theorem that gives rise to a divide and conquer approach to updating action descriptions under certain conditions. Furthermore, we study the computational complexity of decision problems around computing solutions, both for the generic setting and for two particular preference relations, viz. set-inclusion and weight-based preference. While deciding the existence of solutions and recognizing solutions are PSPACE-complete problems in general, the problems fall back into the polynomial hierarchy under restrictions on the additional constraints. We finally discuss methods to compute solutions and approximate solutions (which disregard preference). Our results provide a semantic and computational basis for developing systems that incorporate new information into action domain descriptions in an action language, in the presence of additional constraints.
Thomas Eiter, Esra Erdem 0001, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
Artif. Intell.4
2008 Error Classification in Action Descriptions: A Heuristic Approach
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
AAAI3
2007 A Logic-Based Approach to Finding Explanations for Discrepancies in Optimistic Plan Execution
Thomas Eiter, Esra Erdem 0001, Wolfgang Faber 0001, Ján Senko
Fundam. Informaticae4
2006 Resolving Conflicts in Action Descriptions
Thomas Eiter, Esra Erdem 0001, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
ECAI4
2006 Comparing Action Descriptions Based on Semantic Preferences
Thomas Eiter, Esra Erdem 0001, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
JELIA4
2006 A Tool for Answering Queries on Action Descriptions
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
JELIA3
2005 Updating Action Domain Descriptions
Thomas Eiter, Esra Erdem 0001, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
IJCAI4
2005 KMonitor - A Tool for Monitoring Plan Execution in Action Theories
Thomas Eiter, Michael Fink 0001, Ján Senko
LPNMR3