Event calculus

Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event calculus
Fritz Hamm

Fabian Schlotterbeck

Seminar fr Sprachwissenschaft

Sonderforschungsbereich 833
Universitt Tbingen
September 10, 2010
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Situation Calculus I
Ontology: situation, uents, actions
Basic predicates: Holds(f , s), Result (a, s)
s
0
:
A
B
C D
table
On(x, y), Clear (x)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Situation Calculus II
(1)
a. Holds(On(C, table), s
0
)
b. Holds(On(B, C), s
0
)
c. Holds(On(A, B), s
0
)
d. Holds(On(D, table), s
0
)
e. Holds(Clear (A), s
0
)
f. Holds(Clear (D), s
0
)
g. Holds(Clear (table), s
0
)
Holds(Clear (B), s
0
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Situation Calculus III
Move(x, y)
Result (Move(A, D), s
0
)
B A
C D
table
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Effect axioms I
(2)
a. (Holds(Clear (x), s) Holds(Clear (y), s)
x ,= y x ,= table)
Holds(On(x, y), Result (Move(x, y), s))
b. (Holds(Clear (x), s) Holds(Clear (y), s)
Holds(On(x, z), s) y ,= z x ,= y))
Holds(Clear (z), Result (Move(x, y), s))
(3) a.
Holds(On(A, D), Result (Move(A, D), s
0
))
b.
Holds(Clear (B), Result (Move(A, D), s
0
))
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Effect axioms II
(4) , Holds(On(B, C), Result (Move(A, D), s
0
))
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The frame problem I
(5) Holds(On(v, w), s) x ,= v
Holds(On(v, w), Result (Move(x, y), s))
Holds(On(B, C), Result (Move(A, D), s
0
))
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The frame problem II
(6) Holds(Clear (x), s) x ,= z
Holds(Clear (x), Result (Move(y, z), s))
(7) Holds(Colour (x, c), Result (Paint (x, c), s))
(8) Holds(Colour (x, Red), s
0
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The frame problem III
(9)
/

/
,
Holds(Colour (A, Red), Result (Move(A, D), s
0
))
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The frame problem IV
(10) a. Holds(Colour (x, c), s)
Holds(Colour (x, c), Result (Move(y, z), s))
b. Holds(Colour (x, c
1
), s) x ,= y
Holds(Colour (x, c
1
), Result (Paint (y, c
2
), s))
(11) a. Holds(On(x, y), s)
Holds(On(x, y), Result (Paint (z, c), s))
b. Holds(Clear (x), s)
Holds(Clear (x), Result (Paint (y, c), s))
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Planning I
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Planning II
Tense, aspect and planning
Planning is dened as setting a goal and devising a sequence of
actions that will achieve that goal, taking into account events in,
and properties of the world and the agent.
goal G can be achieved in circumstances C
goal G can be achieved in circumstances C + D
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Planning III
Link between planning and linguistic processing
View a sentence S as a goal (make S true) to be achieved by
updating the discourse model.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Planning IV
(12) It was hot. Jean took off his sweater.
World knowledge contains no link to the effect that taking off ones
sweater changes the temperature. Since it is hot at some time
before now, the state hot must either hold initially or have been
initiated. The latter requires an event, which is however not given
by the discourse. Therefore hot holds initially. Similarily no
terminating event is mentioneed, so that hot extends indenitely,
and it follows that the event described by the second sentence
must be positioned inside hot.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event calculus I: Ontology
EC formalises two types of change
momentanous change
continous change
Ontology: eventtypes, uents, real numbers, individuals.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event calculus II: Language I
Primitive predicates 1:
Initially(f )
Happens(e, t )
Initiates(e, f , t )
Terminates(e, f , t )
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event calculus II: Language II
Primitive predicates 2: changing partial objects
Releases(e, f , t )
Trajectory(f
1
, t , f
2
, d)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event calculus II: Language III
Primitive predicates 3: no f -relevant events between t
1
and t
2
Clipped(t
1
, f , t
2
)
Primitive predicates 4: truth predicate
HoldsAt (f , t )
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Axiomatisation : Inertia
If a uent holds initially or has been initiated by some event
occurring at time t and no event terminating f has occurred
between t and t
/
> t , then f holds at t
/
.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Axiomatisation I: Shanahan I
Denition
Clipped(t
/
, f , t
//
) :=
e, t (Happens(e, t ) (Terminates(e, f , t )
Releases(e, f , t )) t
/
< t t < t
//
)
Denition
Declipped(t
/
, f , t
//
) :=
e, t (Happens(e, t ) (Initiates(e, f , t )
Releases(e, f , t )) t
/
< t t < t
//
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Axiomatisation I: Shanahan II
Axiom
Initially(f ) Clipped(0, f , t ) HoldsAt (f , t )
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f , t ) t < t
/
Clipped(t , f , t
/
) HoldsAt (f , t
/
)
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Terminates(e, f , t ) t < t
/
Declipped(t , f , t
/
) HoldsAt (f , t
/
)
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f
1
, t ) t < t
/
t
/
=
t +d Trajectory(f
1
, t , f
2
, d) Clipped(t , f
1
, t
/
) HoldsAt (f
2
, t
/
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Axiomatisation II: Constraint logic programming
Axiom
Initially(f ) HoldsAt (f , 0)
Axiom
HoldsAt(f , r ) r < t s < r HoldsAt (f , s) Clipped(r , f , t ) HoldsAt(f , t )
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f , t ) t < t
/
Clipped(t , f , t
/
) HoldsAt(f , t
/
)
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f
1
, t )
t < t
/
t
/
= t +d Trajectory(f
1
, t , f
2
, d) Clipped(t , f
1
, t
/
) HoldsAt(f
2
, t
/
)
Axiom
Happens(e, s) t < s < t
/

(Terminates(e, f , s) Releases(e, f , s)) Clipped(t , f , t

/
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint System I
Denition
Let = (S, F, R) be a signature where R contains at least =
s
for
each sort s S.Let X be a set of variables. Further let D be a
structure with equality und T a theory.
A constraint (over ) is a formula r (t
1
, . . . , t
m
) with r R is a
predicate symbol and the t
i
are terms of the respective sorts. Let
C be the set of all constraints (over ). C contains the constraints
true and false with
D [= true and D ,[= false
A 5-tupel = (, D, T, X, CS) with true, false CS C is a
constraint system.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint System II
Denition
Let = (, D, T, X, CS) be a constraint system. A structure D and
a theory T correspond with respect to constraints from CS if
D is a model of T, and
for each c CS: D [=c iff T [=c
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint System III
Example (Linear arithmetic)

IR
lin
= (
IR
, D
IR
, T
IR
lin
, X
IR
, CS
IR
) be a constraint system with

IR
= (real , 0, 1, 1, 2, . . . , +, , , /, =, >, <, , , ,=)
D
IR
= (IR, 0
IR
, 1
IR
, 1
IR
, 2
IR
, . . . , +
IR
,
IR
,
IR
, /
IR
,
=
IR
, >
IR
, <
IR
,
IR
,
IR
, ,=
IR
)
CS
IR
is the set of linear constraints, i.e. constraints of the form
a
1
x
1
+. . . +a
n
x
n
b
where x
1
, . . . , x
n
X
r
, a
1
, . . . , a
n
and b are real numbers and
=, >, <, , , ,=. T
IR
lin
is the theory of linear arithmetic.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint System IV
Example (Boolean constraints)

B
= (
B
, D
B
, T
B
, X
B
, CS
B
) be a constraint system with

B
= (B, true, false, , , , =)
D
B
= (0, 1, 0
B
, 1
B
,
B
,
B
,
B
, =
B
)
CS
B
is the set of all Boolean constraints and T
B
is the theory of
Boolean algebras.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Satisability and Simplication I
solve(C) true, false, unknown
If solve(C) = true, then C is satisable in D: D [=C.
If solve(C) = false, then C is unsatisable in D: D [=C.
Example
C
1
= (y 4x) (x 4y)
is satisable in D
IR
, i.e.
D
IR
[=C
1
Therefore:
solve(C
1
) = true
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Satisability and Simplication II
Denition
A satisability test is called complete if for every constraint C,
solve(C) true, false
If simplify(C) = C
/
, then D [=(C C
/
).
Example
C
2
= (y 4x) (x 4y) (x +y = 0)
simplify(C
2
) = (x = 0y = 0)
Since we have:
D
IR
[=x, yC
2
(x = 0y = 0)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Transition system
Denition
A (state) transition system is a triple (S, S
0
, ) where
S is a set of states.
S
0
S is the set of start states.
SS is the state transition relation which determines for
each state s its successor state.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint program I
Denition
Let a constraint system = (, D, T, X, CS) be gives. A constraint program is a
set of clauses of the following form
Q
1
, . . . , Q
n
Q
where Q is an atomic formula and the Q
i
s are either atoms or constraints from
CS.
A clause with n > 0 is a rule and if n = 0
Q
is called a fact. The part on the right hand of is the head of the clause the part
on the left hand the body of the clause. A goal has the form
?Q
1
, . . . , Q
m
where the Q
i
s are atoms or constraints.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint program II
Denition
A state (of a constraint program P) is a pair (G, C) where G is a
goal and C is a conjunction of constraints from CS. G is called the
pool and C the store of Z. The set of all states is Z
,P
.
A start state is a state of the following form:
(G, true)
The set of all start states is Z
0,,P
.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Constraint program III
Denition
E() =
V
x/t
(x = t ) denotes the conjunction of equality
constraints corresponding to substitution .
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Transition I
Denition
let Z = < G, C > = <?R
1
, . . . , C >, m 1 be a state. We dene
,P
via three subrelations.
unfold: Let R
i
be an atomic formula. If there is a variant
A = Q : Q
1
, . . . , Q
n
, n 0 of a clause in P such that Z and A have
no common variables and there is a mgu on R and Q, then
< G, C >
unfold,,P
<?R
1
. . . R
i 1
E()
Q
1
. . . Q
n
R
i +1
. . . R
m
, C >
failure: Let R
i
be an atomic formula. If there is no clause in P such
that unfold as described above can apply then
< G, C >
failure,,P
<2, false >
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Denition (continued 1)
let Z = < G, C > = <?R
1
, . . . , C >, m 1 be a state.
propagate (1): Let R
i
be a constraint. If
solve

(R
i
C) ,= false,
then
< G, C >
propagate,,P
<?R
1
. . . R
i 1
R
i +1
. . . R
m
, C
/
>,
where C
/
is either R
i
C or a logically simplied equivalent
constraint via
simplify

(R
i
C) = C
/
, i .e. D [=(R
i
C C
/
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Denition (continued 2)
let Z = < G, C > = <?R
1
, . . . , C >, m 1 be a state.
propagate (2): Let R
i
be a constraint. If the conjunction of R
i
and C is not satisfyable, i.e.
solve

(R
i
C) = false, and therefore D [=(R
i
C),
then
< G, C >
propagate,,P
<2, false >
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Denition (
,P
)
The relation
,P
is dened by

,P
=
unfold,,P

failure,,P

propagate,,P
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Additional Denitions I
Denition
The operational semantics of a constraint logic program is given be
the transition system (Z
,P
, Z
0,,P
,
,P
).
Denition
A derivation of a goal G with regard to a constraint program P is a
(possibly innite) sequence
(G, true)
,P
(G
1
, C
1
)
,P
(G
2
, C
2
), . . .
of transition steps.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Additional Denitions II
Denition
A state (2, C) is called an end state.
A state (2, C) with C = false is a failed end state (failure). If
C ,= false the state (2, C) is called a success (state).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Additional Denitions III
Denition
Let
(G
0
, true) = (G
0
, C
0
)
,P
(G
1
, C
1
)
,P
(G
2
, C
2
), . . . ,
,P
(2, C
n
= (G
n
, C
n
)
be a nite derivation.
Formula
var (G
0
)
(G
i
C
i
) is called the logical description of
(G
i
, C
i
).
An answer for goal ?G
0
is a formula equivalent to the logical
description of (G
n
, C
n
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Example I
Example
lightmeal (A, M, D) : 10 I +J +K,
appetizer (A, I), main(M, J), dessert (D, K),
appetizer (pasta, 4)
appetizer (radishes, 1)
main(pork, 11)
main(beef , 7)
dessert (fruit , 2)
dessert (icecream, 6)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Example (CLP-Derivation)
(?lightmeal (X, Y, Z), true)

unfold
(?X = A, Y = M, Z = D, 10 I +J +K,
appetizer (A, I), main(M, J), dessert (D, K), true)

propagate
(?10 I +J +K, appetizer (A, I), main(M, J), dessert (D, K),
X = AY = MZ = D)

propagate
(?appetizer (A, I), main(M, J), dessert (D, K),
10 I +J +K X = AY = MZ = D)

unfold
(?A = radishes, I = 1, main(M, J), dessert (D, K),
10 I +J +K X = AY = MZ = D)

propagate
(?main(M, J), dessert (D, K),
9 J +K X = radishes A = radishes I = 1Y = MZ = D)

unfold
. . .
propagate
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Example (CLP-Derivation, continued)

unfold
. . .
propagate
(?dessert (D, K), 2 K X = radishes A = radishes I =
1Y = beef M = beef J = 7Z = D)

unfold
. . .
propagate
(?2, X = radishes A = radishes I = 1Y = beef M =
beef J = 7Z = fruit D = fruit K = 2)
Answer to query ?lightmeal (X, Y, Z)
(X = radishes) (Y = beef ) (Z = fruit )
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Example I
Example
?lightmeal (X, pork, Z)., true)

unfold
(?X = A, M = pork, Z = D, 10
I +J +K, appetizer (A, I), main(M, J), dessert (D, K)., true)
propagate
(?appetizer (A, I), main(M, J), dessert (D, K)., 10 I +J +K X =
AZ = D)

unfold
(?appetizer (A, I), M = pork, J = 11, dessert (D; K)., 10
I +J +K X = AM = pork Z = D)

propagate
(?appetizer (A, I), J = 11, dessert (D, K)., 10 I +J +K X =
AM = pork Z = D)

propagate
(?2, false)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event Calculus as a Constraint Logic Program I
The constraint system for the event calculus is:

IR
= (
IR
, D
IR
, T
IR
, X
IR
, CS
IR
)
where

IR
= (real , 0, 1, 1, 2, . . . , +, , <)
and
D
IR
= (IR, 0
IR
, 1
IR
, 1
IR
, 2
IR
, . . . , +
IR
,
IR
, , <
IR
)
X
IR
is a set of real valued variables.
T
IR
is the rst order theory of real closed elds.
CS
IR
are rst order formulas from the language of T
IR
.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Event Calculus as a Constraint Logic Program II
Let K be the language of the event calculus, consisting of
programmed predicate symbols.
Constraint programming language CLP(T ) consists of constraints
and formulas from K, whose terms come from
IR
.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Scenario I
Denition
A state S(t ) at time t is a rst order formula built from
1 literals of the form ()HoldsAt(f , t ), for t xed and possibly different f .
2 equalities between uent terms, and between event terms.
3 formulae in the language of the structure (R, <; +, , 0, 1)
Denition
A scenario is a conjunction of statements of the form
1 Initially(f ),
2 S(t ) Initiates(e, f , t ),
3 S(t ) Terminates(e, f , t ),
4 S(t ) Happens(e, t ),
5 S(t ) Releases(e, f , t ),
6 S(f
1
, f
2
, t , d) Trajectory(f
1
, t , f
2
, d).
where S(t ) (more generally S(f
1
, f
2
, t , d)) is a state in the sense of the above denition
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Scenario II
Example
1 Initially(height(0))
2 Happens(tapon,5)
3 Initiates(tapon,lling,t )
4 Terminates(overow,lling,t )
5 x < 10 Releases(tap-on, height(x), t )
6 HoldsAt(height(10),t )HoldsAt(lling,t ) Happens(overow,t ).
7 HoldsAt(height(x),t )
Trajectory(lling,t ,height(x +d),d)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Scenario III
(13) Carlos is building a house.
1 Initially(house(a))
2 Initiates(start, build, t )
3 Initiates(nish, house(c), t )
4 Terminates(nish, build, t )
5 HoldsAt (build, t ) HoldsAt (house(c), t ) Happens(nish, t )
6 Releases(start, house(x), t )
7 HoldsAt (house(x), t )
Trajectory(build, t , house(x +g(d)), d)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Minimal models and non-monotonicity
A consequence relation [= is nonmonotonic if
[= does not imply , [=.
In nonmonotonic reasoning, people construct a minimal model of
the premisses (which is often unique); in monotonic reasoning,
they must consider all models of the premisses.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs I
Denition
A complex subgoal is characterised recursively as
1 an atom in K, or
2 x(B
1
. . . B
m
c), where c is a constraint and each B
i
is a
complex subgoal.
complex body is a conjunction of complex subgoals.
Denition
A normal program is a nite set of formulas of the form A of
CLP(T ) such that is a complex body and A is a predicate from
K.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs II
Denition
Let P be a normal program, consisting of clauses
B
1
c
1
p
1
(t
1
), . . . , B
n
c
n
p
n
(t
n
),
where the p
i
are atoms. The completion of P, denoted by comp(P), is computed by the following recipe:
1 choose a predicate p that occurs in the head of a clause of P
2 choose a sequence of new variables x of length the arity of p
3 replace in the i -th clause of P all occurrences of a term in t
i
by a corresponding variable in x and add the
conjunct x = t
i
to the body; we thus obtain B
i
c
i
x = t
i
p
i
(x)
4 for each i , let z
i
be the set of free variables in B
i
c
i
x = t
i
not in x
5 given p, let n
1
, . . . , n
k
enumerate the clauses in which p occurs as head
6 dene Def (p) to be the formula
x(p(x)
z
n
1
(B
n
1
c
n
1
x = t
n
1
) . . . z
n
k
(B
n
k
c
n
k
x = t
n
k
).
7 comp(P) is then obtained as the formula
V
p
Def (p), where the conjunction ranges over predicates p occurring in
the head of a clause of P.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs III
Example
1 Initially(height(0))
2 Happens(tapon,5)
3 Initiates(tapon,lling,t )
4 Terminates(overow,lling,t )
5 x < 10 Releases(tap-on, height(x), t )
6 HoldsAt(height(10),t )HoldsAt(lling,t )
Happens(overow,t ).
7 HoldsAt(height(x),t )
Trajectory(lling,t ,height(x +d),d)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs IV
(14) (x = tap-on y = 5) Happens(x, y)
(15) (HoldsAt (height (10), t ) HoldsAt (lling, t )
x = overow y = t ) Happens(x, y)
(16) xy[Happens(x, y) (x = tap on y = 5)

(HoldsAt (height (10), t ) HoldsAt (lling, t ) x =

overow y = t )]
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs V
Denition
A partial interpretation I is a function which maps ground atoms (in P) to
t, f, u, and constraints to t, f
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs VI
Denition
Given a normal program P, a real-closed eld A, a partial interpretation I
and a ground atom A, the (immediate) consequence operator
P
is
dened as
1
P
(I)(A) = t if there exists a clause Bc p(s) in P and an
assignment into A such that A = p(s) and I(c) = I(B) = t.
2
P
(I)(A) = f if for each clause in P of the form Bc p(s) and
each assignment into A such that A = p(s): I(c) = f or
I(B) = f.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Normal programs VII
Theorem
Let T be the theory of real-closed elds, P a normal program, ?c, G a
query.
1 ?c, G succeeds iff
T comp(P) [=
3
(c G)
2 ?c, G fails nitely iff
T comp(P) [=
3
(c G).
Here, () denotes universal (existential) closure.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Theoretical Results I
Denition
A subset of R
n
is semialgebraic if it is a nite union of sets of the
form x R
n
[ f
1
= . . . = f
k
= 0, g
1
> 0, . . . , g
l
> 0, where the
f
i
, g
j
are polynomials.
Theorem
Let T be the constraint theory describing the structure A. Let P
be a normal program consisting of the axioms of the event calculus
together with a scenario. Let ?G be a nitely evaluable query in the
language of the event calculus. Let b be an assignment to the
variables y. Then there exists a semialgebraic set dened by a
constraint c(x) such that T +comp(P) [=(G(xb) c(x)).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Theoretical Results II
Corollary
Let P be as above, and suppose it is nitely evaluable. Then the
theory T + comp(P) has a unique model on R. In this model all
the (real parts of the) primitive predicates are represented by
semialgebraic sets. Actually it sufces to require that for all uents
f (x) in the scenario, the query ?HoldsAt(f (x), t ) is nitely
evaluable.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Theoretical Results III
1 Happens(e, 0)
2 Happens(e, t
/
) t = t
/
+2 Happens(e, t )
3 Happens(e
/
, 1)
4 Happens(e
/
, t
/
) t = t
/
+2 Happens(e
/
, t )
5 Initiates(e
/
, f , t )
6 Terminates(e, f , t )
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Theoretical Results IV
1 Happens(e, 0)
2 Happens(e, 1)
3 Happens(e,
1
3
)
4 Happens(e, t
/
) Happens(e, t ) t =
t
/
+t
2

Happens(e, t )
5 Happens(e
/
, t
/
) Happens(e
/
, t ) t =
t
/
+t
2

Happens(e
/
, t )
6 Happens(e, t ) Happens(e
/
, t )
7 Initially(f )
8 Initiates(e, f , t )
9 Terminates(e
/
, f , t ).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The Yale shooting scenario I
In the Yale shooting scenario someone usually a turkey Fred is
killed by a gunshot. There are three actions involved Load, Wait,
Shoot and two uents Alive and Loaded. The Load action puts a
bullet in the gun and the victim dies after the Shoot action as long
as the gun is loaded. The Wait action is supposed to have no
effect on any uent.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The Yale shooting scenario II
1 Initiates(Load, Loaded, t)
2 HoldsAt (Loaded, t) Initiates(Shoot, Dead, t)
3 HoldsAt (Loaded, t) Terminates(Shoot, Alive, t)
4 Initially(Alive)
5 Happens(Load, 5)
6 Happens(Wait, 10)
7 Happens(Shoot, 15)
Derive: HoldsAt (Alive, 20), HoldsAt (Dead, 20)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The imperfective paradox
(17) Carlos crossed the street.
(18) Carlos was crossing the street.
Denition
A sentence Past () is true now iff there is a time t < now
such that is true at t .
A sentence Prog(Past ()) is true now iff there is an interval
I now such that Past () is true at I.
This denition implies that (17) follows from (18).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Verb classes I
(19) Activities: run, push a cart, draw.
(20) Accomplishments: cross the street, build a house, write a letter.
(21) Achievements: begin, reach, arrive.
(22) Points: ash, spot, blink.
(23) States: know, love, be sad.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Verb classes II
Denition
An eventuality is a structure (f
1
, f
2
, e, f
3
), where
1 f
1
is a uent which represents an activity, something which
exerts a force
2 f
2
is a parametrized uent, representing a parametrized
object or state, which is driven by the force f
1
3 e is the culminating event, representing a canonical goal
4 f
2
is a uent which represents the state of having achieved
the goal
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Verb classes III
Releases Traj.
1
Traj.
3
f
2
, f
3
+ +
f
1
+
State (, , , +)
Activity (strict) (+, , , )
Activity (wide) (+, +, , )
Accomplishment (+, +, +, +)
Achievement (, , +, +)
Point (, , +, )
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Solving the imperfective paradox I
1 crossing is an activity uent.
2 distance(x) is a variable quantity representing the distanced
crossed.
3 m is a real constant indicating the width of the street.
4 similarly, 0 is a real constant indicating the stage at which the
crossing starts.
5 start is any event initiating crossing.
6 reach is the canonical event terminating crossing, namely
when the other side of the street is reached.
7 g is a monotone increasing real-valued function relating the
crossing activity to the distance crossed.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Solving the imperfective paradox II
1 Initially(oneside)
2 Initially(distance(0))
3 HoldsAt(distance(m), t ) HoldsAt(crossing, t )
Happens(reach, t )
4 Initiates(start, crossing, t )
5 Releases(start, distance(0), t )
6 Initiates(reach, otherside, t )
7 Terminates(reach, crossing, t )
8 HoldsAt(distance(x), t )
Trajectory(crossing, t , distance(x +g(d)), d)
9 HoldsAt(distance(x
1
), t ) HoldsAt(distance(x
2
), t )
x
1
= x
2
.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Solving the imperfective paradox III
Theorem
Let P be the logic program consisting of EC and the scenario for
crossing a street. Suppose P is extended to P
/
so that the query
?HoldsAt(crossing, now) succeeds in P
/
. Suppose
lim
d
g(d) m. Then comp(P
/
) has a unique model, and in this
model there is a time t now for which HoldsAt(other-side, t ).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Solving the imperfective paradox IV
(8) Terminates(Accident, cross, t )
(9)
Happens(Accident , t ), t < now
where t is the time mentioned in the theorem
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The English perfect I
(24) I have caught the u.
-
E R, S
(25) a. Initiates(e, f , t )
b. HoldsAt(f ,now).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The English perfect II
Derive: t <now, Happens(e, t )
Happens(e, t )Initiates(e, f , t )t <t
/
Clipped(t , f , t
/
) HoldsAt (f , t
/
)
(Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f , t ) t < t
/
Clipped(t , f , t
/
)) (now = t
/
)
HoldsAt (f , t
/
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The semantics of sentences I
We view a sentence S as a goal (make S true) to be achieved
by updating the discourse model.
(26) I have caught the u.
(27) ?HoldsAt (f, now) succeeds.
Initiates(e, f, t) is given
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f , t ) t < t
/
Clipped(t , f , t
/
)
HoldsAt(f , t
/
)
Add only Happens(e, t), t < now.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The semantics of sentences II
?HoldsAt (f , now) succeeds
Initiates(e, f , t )
update
Initiates(e, f , t ), Happens(e, t )
Clipped(t , f , now) follows by negation as failure.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
The semantics of sentences III
Given q and

1
q

2
q
.
.
.

n
q
we want to conclude that q can only be the case because one of
the
i
is the case.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Past progressive I
Denition
The past progressive applies to the activity component of a quadruple,
say the uent f , and is represented by the integrity constraint which says
that the query
?HoldsAt (f , R), R < now
must succeed.
Denition
The past applies to the canonical event derived by hierarchical planning
and is represented by the integrity constraint which says that the query
?Happens(e, t), t < now
must succeed.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Past progressive II
Denition
Happens(start
f
, s) Happens(nish
f
, r ) s < t r
HoldsAt (f , t ) Happens(e, t ).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Past progressive III
Terminates(Accident, cross, t )
the integrity constraint
?Happens(Accident , t ), t <now, HoldsAt (distance(m), t ) succeeds
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Reication I
(1) Most (i.e. a majority) of Nixons assertions about Watergate
are false. (Jones)
(2) Everything Jones says about Watergate is true. (Nixon)
Assume that (1) is the only assertion of Jones about Watergate
and that Nixons assertions are evenly balanced between true and
false assertions except for (2).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Reication II
Denition
S is conservative over S
0
iff for all in L(S
0
):
S S
0

Denition
Let L be some extension of L
0
(e.g. by means of a truth predicate).
Then we may code formulas of L as terms in L
0
. We write for
the Gdel number in L
0
of in L. This notation will be used
interchangeably both for the term in L
0
and for the object denoted
by that term in a model M
0
.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Reication III
Denition

n
[ x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
m
] = (, y
1
, . . . , y
m
).
Axiom
(T
n
A) T
n
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
, [ u
1
, . . . , u
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
m
])
(x
1
, . . . , x
n
, y
1
, . . . , y
m
)
T
0
()
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Reication IV
Theorem
Let S be a consistent system in the sense that S has a model.
Then there exists an extension S with truth axioms which is
conservative over S.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Application I
Event is derived notion, via nominalisation in the Feferman
calculus
Hence no event-variables in basic language, but
time-variables
Denition
If (t , x) is a formula, the eventtype generated by will be
t .[t , x].
Denition
If (t , x) is a formula, the uent generated by (t , x) is the term
[

t , x].
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Application II
Two possibilities to construct terms from predicate burn(x, y, t ):
1. Event types: t .burn[j , h, t ]
2. Fluents: burn[j , h,

t ]
(28) a. Johns burning of the house
b. Johns burning the house
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Application III
HoldsAt = T
1
HoldsAt (burn[j , h,

t ], s) burn(j , h, s)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Processing Language I
Question: what happens in the brain when processing
language?
Marr & Poggio (1976): 3 levels
abstract information processing task
algorithm
implementation of algorithm in neural network tissue
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Processing Language II
What happens in the brain when understanding natural
language
at level of information processing, language comprehension
can be thought of as
construction of an internal model for a piece of discourse
an internal model contains representations for the individuals
and events mentioned in the discourse, their properties and
relations.
construction of the model uses linguistic knowledge and world
knowledge
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Processing Language III
Two-step processing
First a syntactic representation of the sentence is computed
next the meaning of the sentence is computed, using
compositionality
lastly, possible contributions of the verbal and non-verbal
context are integrated.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Processing Language IV
One-step processing
There does not seem to be a seperate stage during
which word meaning is exclusively integrated at the
sentence-level. Incremental interpretation is for the most
part done by an immediate mapping onto a discourse
model.
Hagoort (2006)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Processing Language V
Immediacy is . . . the general processing principle of
unication. Semantic unication does not wait until all
relevant syntactic information (such as word class
information) is available, but starts immediately with
what it derives on the basis of the bottom-up input and
the left context.
Hagoort (2006)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Discourse Models I
Consequences for comprehension as information processing task
construction of an internal model for a piece of discourse
together with the principle of immediacy this means that the
internal model constructed may have to be revised.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Discourse Models II
What is an internal model and how is it constructed: a task for logic
models are constructed through a reasoning process
non-monotonic reasoning a systematic way of guessing
models and revising them
formalisation: constraint logic programming + event calculus
independent motivation for this system: planning is assumed
to underpin language capacity
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Construction of internal models I
Conceptual, encyclopedic and semantic knowledge is
recruited from declarative memory.
Model is computed in working memory.
The main processes postulated by the theoretical analysis
are:
search for world knowledge
unication to apply world knowledge to case at hand
re-computation of discourse models
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Construction of internal models II
Marrs second level: an algorithm that produces an internal
model from a piece of discourse
logic programming comes with a good algorithm for model
construction via minimal xpoints, which can be interpreted in
neural networks.
because language understanding is largely automatic, it
seems plausible that such an algorithm exists.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Construction of internal models III
The progressive again
Four types of sentence in the progressive
Mary was writing reports when her secretary rearranged the
sheets.
Mary was writing reports when her secretary destroyed the
sheets.
Mary was writing a report when her secretary rearranged the
sheets.
Mary was writing a report when her secretary destroyed the
sheets.
Only in the last case one tends to conclude that no report is
written.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Construction of internal models IV
What the algorithm tells us about the progressive
Mary was writing a report when her secretary destroyed the
sheets.
Mary was writing a report leads to a construction of a minimal
model in which there is a report. (Immediacy)
the internal model has a temporal component: there is a past
refernce point R at which write report holds.
inertia: time T > R at which report is ready
when her secretary destroyed the sheets leads to a
recomputation of the original model.
world knowledge implies: in the end there is no report; the
new model takes a different course after R.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Marrs third level I
the third level: implementation of the algorithm in neural
network/tissue
the algorithm consists of search and unication but also
temporal projection and revision
does the algorithm leave traces as
specic temporal prole of EEG signal
specic EEG frequencies
specic location as source for EEGs
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Marrs third level II
ERP investigation in G. Baggio 09
Predicted effects
Sustained anterior negativity as a consequence of on-line
re-computation of internal models
Involvement of Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex (Brodman areas
45, 47): indicative of unication?
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Baggio 09 I
Sample material (translated)
1 The girl was writing letters when her friend spilled coffee on
the tablecloth.
2 The girl was writing letters when her friend spilled coffee on
the paper.
3 The girl was writing a letter when her friend spilled coffee on
the tablecloth.
4 The girl was writing a letter when her friend spilled coffee on
the paper.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Baggio 09 II
Behavioural results
Subjects interpreted (1) and (2) as entailing that the girl has
written one or more letters in 93% and 80% respectively.
When asked whether the goal was attained in (3) subjects
respond in the afrmative in 75% of the cases.
This drops to 37% in (4).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Baggio 09 III
ERP results
The girl was writing a letter when her friend spilled coffee on
the paper.
A sustained left anterior negativity was elicited by spilled
coffee
which was moreover larger for subjects who had a higher
tendency to respond that the activity is interrupted (after
reading spilled).
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Summary
logic plays a role in formulating the information processing
task corresponding to language comprehension.
the processing principle immediacy makes this logic
nonmonotonic
the nonmonotonic logic predicts that with the progressive
recomputation must occur.
ERP data are consistent with this prediction.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
An example in more detail: Coercion I
(29) a. She resembles her mother.
b. *She is resembling her mother.
(30) She is resembling her mother more and more every day.
(31) I am loving her more and more, the more I get to know her.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
An example in more detail: Coercion II
Axiom
Happens(e, t ) Initiates(e, f , t ) t < t
/
Clipped(t , f , t
/
)
HoldsAt(f , t
/
)
Axiom
Happens(e, s) t < s < t
/

(Terminates(e, f , s) Releases(e, f , s)) Clipped(t , f , t
/
)
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
An example in more detail: Coercion III
Steps in the computation of an internal model
She resembles her mother is represented as
HoldsAt (f, now)
with f = resemble
the phrase more and more introduces f
/
(x) denoting
resemblance to degree x.
The progressive introduces a dynamics consisting of the
general form:
1 Releases(e, f
2
, t )
2 HoldsAt (f
2
(x), t ) Trajectory(f
1
, t , f
2
(x
/
), d)
where f
1
, f
2
, and e are parameters.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
An example in more detail: Coercion IV
The terms f
1
, f
2
, e have to be unied by terms provided by the
discourse, namely f , f
/
(x) and a starting event e
0
which
derives from HoldsAt (f, now).
First attempt: substitute f for f
2
in the Releases and the
Trajectory predicates. This allows to derive Clipped(s, f , r ) for
s < t
0
< r . This means that the query Clipped(s, f , r ) will
fail und thus HoldsAt (f , now) as well.
Consequence: No discourse model for HoldsAt (f , now) is
computed.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
An example in more detail: Coercion V
Second attempt: substitute f for the rst and f
/
(x) for the third
argument of the Trajectory predicate and f
/
(x) for the
argument of the Releases predicate. In this case a model for
HoldsAt (f, now)
is computed by requiring that a start event occurs.
Consequence: In the computed model the state resemble is
interpreted as an activity; i.e. a state is coerced into an
activity via unication.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Anaphora: F. Hamm and T. Solstad 09 I
(32) Die Absperrung des Rathauses wurde vorgestern von
Demonstranten behindert. Wegen anhaltender Unruhen
wird sie auch heute aufrecht erhalten.
The cordoning-off of the town hall was disturbed by
protesters the day before yesterday. Due to continuing
unrest, it [the state of being cordoned off] is sustained
today as well.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Anaphora: F. Hamm and T. Solstad 09 II
(33) Die Absperrung des Rathauses wurde vorgestern von
Demonstranten verhindert. *Wegen anhaltender Unruhen
wird sie auch heute aufrecht erhalten.
The cordoning-off of the town hall was prevented by
protesters the day before yesterday. Due to continuing
unrest, it [the state of being cordoned off] is sustained
today as well.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Anaphora: F. Hamm and T. Solstad 09 III
(34) a. Hans
Hans
schrieb
wrote
einen
a
Brief.
letter.
Das
It
dauerte
lasted
zwei
two
Stunden.
hours.
Hans wrote a letter. This took him two hours.
b. Hans
Hans
schrieb
wrote
keinen
no
Brief.
letter.
*Das
It
dauerte
lasted
zwei
two
Stunden
hours.
Hans did not write a letter. This took him two hours.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Anaphora: F. Hamm and T. Solstad 09 IV
(35) a. Hans
Hans
schrieb
wrote
einen
a
Brief.
letter.
Das
It
berraschte
surprised
uns
us
alle.
all.
Hans wrote a letter. We were all surprised by that.
b. Hans
Hans
schrieb
wrote
keinen
no
Brief.
letter.
Das
It
berraschte
surprised
uns
us
alle.
all.
Hans did not write a letter. We were all surprised by
that.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Anaphora: F. Hamm and T. Solstad 09 V
(36) Auf
in
Gemarkung
district
Schnau
Schnau
bei
at
Heidelberg
Heidelberg
wurde
was
ein
a
toter
dead
Fuchs
fox
gefunden,
found,
der
which
Tollwut
rabies
hatte.
had.
Deswegen
For this reason
wurde
was
der
the
Bereich
area
nrdlich
north of
des
the
Neckars
Neckar
stlich
east of
der
the
Bundesstrae
federal highway
zum
to the
wildtollwutgefhrdeten
wild-rabies-endangered
Bezirk
area
erklrt.
declared.
In the district of Schnau a fox was found which had died
from canine madness. For this reason, the territory which
is north of the Neckar and to the east of the federal
highway was declared a wildlife rabies high-risk area.
Event calculus
Hamm &
Schlotterbeck
The Frame
Problem
Event Calculus I
Constraint Logic
Programming
Event Calculus
II
Applications
Integrity
constraints
Feferman
theories
Cognitive
science and
logic
References
Baggio (2007). Semantics and the Electrophysiology of Meaning,
Dissertation, Donders Institute for Cognitive Neuroimaging.
Hofstedt & Wolf (2007) Einfhrung in die Constraint
Programmierung, Springer.
Marriott & P. Stuckey (1998). Programming with Constraints, MIT
Press.
Shanahan (1997). Solving the Frame Problem A Mathematical
Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia., MIT Press.
van Lambalgen & Hamm (2005). The Proper Treatment of Events.
Blackwell Malden.