Resolving Conflicts between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions, and Desires
نویسندگان
چکیده
This paper provides a logical analysis of conflicts between informational, motivational and deliberative attitudes such as beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. The contributions are twofold. First, conflict resolutions are classified based on agent types, and formalized in an extension of Reiter’s normal default logic. Second, several desiderata for conflict resolutions are introduced, discussed and tested on the logic. The results suggest that Reiter’s default logic is too strong, in the sense that a weaker notion of extension is needed to satisfy the desiderata.
منابع مشابه
Beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires as components in an agent architecture
In this paper we discuss how cognitive attitudes like beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires can be represented as components with input/output functionality. We study how to break down an agent specification into a specification of individual components and a specification of their coordination. A typical property discussed at the individual component specification level is whether the i...
متن کاملAn Alternative Classification of Agent Types based on BOID Conflict Resolution
In this paper, we introduce an alternative classification of agent types based on the BOID architecture. According to BOID, agents consist of at least four components called beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. The output of the different components may conflict and these conflicts are solved by an ordering function that determines in which order components should generate outputs. It...
متن کاملFrom Desires, Obligations and Norms to Goals
Traditional models of agents based on Beliefs, Desires and Intentions usually only include either desires or goals. Therefore the process whereby goals arise from desires is given scant attention. In this paper we argue that the inclusion of both desires and goals in the same model can be important, particularly in a Multi-Agent System context, where other sources of individual motivation such ...
متن کاملPreferences and Assumption-Based Argumentation for Conflict-Free Normative Agents
Argumentation can serve as an effective computational tool and as a useful abstraction for various agent activities and in particular for agent reasoning. In this paper we further support this claim by mapping a form of normative BDI agents onto assumption-based argumentation. By way of this mapping we equip our agents with the capability of resolving conflicts amongst norms, beliefs, desires a...
متن کاملBDI and BOID Argumentation
In this discussion paper we are interested in the role of argumentation in the context of cognitive BDI and BOID agents, i.e., agents whose deliberation is based on beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. We discuss argumentation issues for single agent deliberation, multiagent dialogues, and interaction between agents and their normative system. For each category we discuss examples and ...
متن کامل