Sensor fusion in the epistemic situation calculus

References

• Bacchus, F., Halpern, J. Y., & Levesque, H. J. (1999). Reasoning about noisy sensors and effectors in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 111, 171–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajcsy, R. (1988). Active perception. Proceedings of the IEEE, 76, 966–1005.
   Google Scholar
• Belle, V., & Levesque, H. J. (2013). Reasoning about continuous uncertainty in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Beijing, China.
   Google Scholar
• De Giacomo, G., & Levesque, H. (1999). An incremental interpreter for high-level programs with sensing. In H. J. Levesque & F. Pirri (Eds.), Logical foundations for cognitive agents: contributions in honor of Ray Reiter (pp. 86–102). Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dubois, D., & Prade, H. (2004). Possibilistic logic: A retrospective and prospective view. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 144, 3–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzioni, O., Golden, K., & Weld, D. (1994). Tractable closed world reasoning with updates. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) (pp. 178–189). Bonn, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Forth, J., & Shanahan, M. (2004). Indirect and conditional sensing in the event calculus. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 900–905). Valencia, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Funge, J. (1999). Representing knowledge within the situation calculus using interval-valued epistemic fluents. Reliable Computing, 5, 35–61.
   Google Scholar
• Golden, K., & Weld, D. (1996). Representing sensing actions: The middle ground revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. A. (1976). Is there a problem about substitutional quantification? In G. Evans & J. McDowell (Eds.), Truth and meaning (pp. 324–419). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakemeyer, G., & Levesque, H. J. (2004). Situations, si! situation terms, no!. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) (pp. 516–526). Whistler, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Lakemeyer, G., & Levesque, H. J. (2011). A semantic characterization of a useful fragment of the situation calculus with knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 142–164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakemeyer, G., & Levesque, H. J. (2014). Decidable reasoning in a fragment of the epistemic situation calculus. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Levesque, H., Reiter, R., Lésperance, Y., Lin, F., & Scherl, R. (1997). GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming, 31, 59–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levesque, H. J., & Lakemeyer, G. (2001). The logic of knowledge bases. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, F., & Reiter, R. (1994). Forget it!. In Proceedings of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Relevance (pp. 154–159). New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, F., & Reiter, R. (1997). How to progress a database. Artificial Intelligence, 92, 131–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minker, J. (1982). On indefinite databases and the closed world assumption. In D. W. Loveland (Ed.), Sixth Conference on Automated Deduction (Vol. 138, pp. 292–308). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Niemueller, T., Abdo, N., Hertle, A., Lakemeyer, G., Burgard, W., & Nebel, B. (2013). Towards deliberative active perception using persistent memory. In Proceedings of the IROS 2013 Workshop on AI-based Robotics. Tokyo, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Rajaratnam, D., Levesque, H. J., Pagnucco, M., & Thielscher, M. (2014). Forgetting in action. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR). Vienna, Austria.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, R. (1978). On closed world data bases. In H. Gallaire & J. Minker (Eds.), Logic and data bases (pp. 55–76). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, R. (2001). Knowledge in action: Logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scherl, R., & Levesque, H. J. (2003). Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence, 144, 1–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwering, C., Lakemeyer, G., & Pagnucco, M. (2015). Belief revision and progression of knowledge bases in the epistemic situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). Buenos Aires, Argentina.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S., Pagnucco, M., Lespérance, Y., & Levesque, H. J. (2011). Iterated belief change in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 175, 165–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenorth, M., & Beetz, M. (2013). KnowRob -- A knowledge processing infrastructure for cognition-enabled robots. Part 1: The knowrob system. International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR), 32, 566–590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thielscher, M. (2000). Representing the knowledge of a robot. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR) (pp. 109–120). Breckenridge, CO.
   Google Scholar