Alasdair Hill
ABSTRACT
Verification of AI is a challenge that has engineering, algorithmic and programming language components. For example, AI planners are deployed to model actions of autonomous agents. They comprise a number of searching algorithms that, given a set of specified properties, find a sequence of actions that satisfy these properties. Although AI planners are mature tools from the algorithmic and engineering points of view, they have limitations as programming languages. Decidable and efficient automated search entails restrictions on the syntax of the language, prohibiting use of higher-order properties or recursion. This paper proposes a methodology for embedding plans produced by AI planners into the dependently-typed language Agda, which enables users to reason about and verify more general and abstract properties of plans, and also provides a more holistic programming language infrastructure for modelling plan execution.
- Mohammad Abdulaziz and Dominik Berger. 2021. Computing Plan-Length Bounds Using Lengths of Longest Paths. In Thirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, The Eleventh Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, EAAI 2021, Virtual Event, February 2-9, 2021. 11709–11717.Google Scholar
- Mohammad Abdulaziz and Peter Lammich. 2018. A formally verified validator for classical planning problems and solutions. In 2018 IEEE 30th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). 474–479.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammad Abdulaziz and Peter Lammich. 2020. AI Planning Languages Semantics. Arch. Formal Proofs, 2020 (2020).Google Scholar
- David W. Albrecht, John N. Crossley, and John S. Jeavons. 1997. New Curry-Howard Terms for Full Linear Logic. Theor. Comput. Sci., 185, 2 (1997), 217–235. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ana Bove, Peter Dybjer, and Ulf Norell. 2009. A brief overview of Agda–a functional language with dependent types. In International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher Order Logics. 73–78. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Cristiano Calcagno, Dino Distefano, Jérémy Dubreil, Dominik Gabi, Pieter Hooimeijer, Martino Luca, Peter O’Hearn, Irene Papakonstantinou, Jim Purbrick, and Dulma Rodriguez. 2015. Moving fast with software verification. In NASA Formal Methods Symposium. 3–11.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Cashmore, Anna Collins, Benjamin Krarup, Senka Krivic, Daniele Magazzeni, and David Smith. 2019. Towards explainable AI planning as a service. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.05059.Google Scholar
- Iliano Cervesato and Frank Pfenning. 2002. A Linear Logical Framework. Inf. Comput., 179, 1 (2002), 19–75. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lukáš Chrpa, Pavel Surynek, and Jiří Vyskočil. 2007. Encoding of planning problems and their optimizations in linear logic. In Applications of Declarative Programming and Knowledge Management. Springer, 54–68.Google Scholar
- Daniel C Dennett. 2006. Cognitive wheels: The frame problem of AI.Google Scholar
- Lucas Dixon, Alan Smaill, and Tracy Tsang. 2009. Plans, Actions and Dialogues Using Linear Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 18, 2 (2009), 251–289. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rebecca Eifler, Michael Cashmore, Jörg Hoffmann, Daniele Magazzeni, and Marcel Steinmetz. 2020. A new approach to plan-space explanation: Analyzing plan-property dependencies in oversubscription planning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 34, 9818–9826.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rebecca Eifler, Marcel Steinmetz, Alvaro Torralba, and Jörg Hoffmann. 2020. Plan-space explanation via plan-property dependencies: Faster algorithms & more powerful properties. In 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2020. 4091–4097.Google ScholarCross Ref
- George W Ernst and Allen Newell. 1969. GPS: A case study in generality and problem solving. Academic Pr.Google Scholar
- Richard Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. 1971. STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2, 3/4 (1971), 189–208.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peng Fu and Ekaterina Komendantskaya. 2017. Operational semantics of resolution and productivity in Horn clause logic. Formal Asp. Comput., 29, 3 (2017), 453–474. Google ScholarCross Ref
- Peng Fu, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Tom Schrijvers, and Andrew Pond. 2016. Proof Relevant Corecursive Resolution. In Functional and Logic Programming - 13th International Symposium, FLOPS 2016, Kochi, Japan, March 4-6, 2016, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9613). Springer, 126–143.Google Scholar
- Alfonso Gerevini and Derek Long. 2005. Plan constraints and preferences in PDDL3. Technical Report 2005-08-07, Department of Electronics for Automation ….Google Scholar
- Cordell Green. 1969. Theorem proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering systems. Machine intelligence, 4 (1969), 183–205.Google Scholar
- Patrick J Hayes. 1981. The frame problem and related problems in artificial intelligence. In Readings in Artificial Intelligence. Elsevier, 223–230.Google Scholar
- A. Hill, M. Daggitt, F. Farka, K. Komendantskaya, and C. Schwaab. 2021. Agda Code for Proof Carrying Plans, 2018 – 2021. https://github.com/PDTypesGoogle Scholar
- Alasdair Hill, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, and Ronald P. A. Petrick. 2020. Proof-Carrying Plans: a Resource Logic for AI Planning. In PPDP ’20: 22nd International Symposium on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming, Bologna, Italy, 9-10 September, 2020. ACM, 14:1–14:13. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Charles Antony Richard Hoare. 1969. An axiomatic basis for computer programming. Commun. ACM, 12, 10 (1969), 576–580. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Joshua S. Hodas and Dale Miller. 1994. Logic Programming in a Fragment of Intuitionistic Linear Logic. Inf. Comput., 110, 2 (1994), 327–365. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samin S Ishtiaq and Peter W O’Hearn. 2001. BI as an assertion language for mutable data structures. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT symposium on Principles of programming languages. 14–26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Eric Jacopin. 1993. Classical AI planning as theorem proving: The case of a fragment of linear logic. In AAAI Fall Symposium on Automated Deduction in Nonstandard Logics. 62–66.Google Scholar
- John McCarthy and Patrick J Hayes. 1981. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Readings in artificial intelligence. Elsevier, 431–450.Google Scholar
- Drew McDermott, Malik Ghallab, Adele Howe, Craig Knoblock, Ashwin Ram, Manuela Veloso, Daniel Weld, and David Wilkins. 1998. PDDL-the planning domain definition language.Google Scholar
- Cathy O’neil. 2016. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter O’Hearn, John Reynolds, and Hongseok Yang. 2001. Local reasoning about programs that alter data structures. In International Workshop on Computer Science Logic. 1–19. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Peter W O’hearn. 2007. Resources, concurrency, and local reasoning. Theoretical computer science, 375, 1-3 (2007), 271–307. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jeff Polakow and Frank Pfenning. 2001. Ordered linear logic and applications. Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Pym. 2019. Resource semantics: logic as a modelling technology. ACM SIGLOG News, 6, 2 (2019), 5–41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anders Schack-Nielsen and Carsten Schürmann. 2008. Celf - A Logical Framework for Deductive and Concurrent Systems (System Description). In Automated Reasoning, 4th International Joint Conference, IJCAR 2008, Sydney, Australia, August 12-15, 2008, Proceedings, Alessandro Armando, Peter Baumgartner, and Gilles Dowek (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5195). Springer, 320–326. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Christopher Schwaab, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Alasdair Hill, Frantisek Farka, Ronald P. A. Petrick, Joe B. Wells, and Kevin Hammond. 2019. Proof-Carrying Plans. In Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages - 21th International Symposium, PADL 2019, Lisbon, Portugal, January 14-15, 2019, Proceedings, José Júlio Alferes and Moa Johansson (Eds.) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11372). Springer, 204–220.Google Scholar
- Mark Steedman. 2002. Plans, affordances, and combinatory grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 5-6 (2002), 723–753.Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Proof-Carrying Plans
Practical Aspects of Declarative LanguagesAbstractIt is becoming increasingly important to verify safety and security of AI applications. While declarative languages (of the kind found in automated planners and model checkers) are traditionally used for verifying AI systems, a big challenge is to ...
Dependent Types for Safe and Secure Web Programming
IFL '13: Proceedings of the 25th symposium on Implementation and Application of Functional LanguagesDependently-typed languages allow precise types to be used during development, facilitating static reasoning about program behaviour. However, with the use of more specific types comes the disadvantage that it becomes increasingly difficult to write ...
A specification for dependent types in Haskell
We propose a core semantics for Dependent Haskell, an extension of Haskell with full-spectrum dependent types. Our semantics consists of two related languages. The first is a Curry-style dependently-typed language with nontermination, irrelevant ...
Comments