Abstract

This paper combines ideas from argumentation [1,8] with desires and planning rules, in order to give a formal account of how consistent sets of intentions can be obtained from a conflicting set of desires. We show how conflicts may arise between desires and we resolve them. We argue that the set of desires can be clustered in three categories: i) the intentions of the agent, ii) the rejected desires and iii) the desires in abeyance. Finally, we show that the use of argumentation with desires is different from the usual kind of argumentation with default rules.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A reasoning model based on the production of acceptable arguments 34, 197–216 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bratman, M.: Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M., Israel, D., Pollack, M.: Plans and resource bounded reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42 (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In: Cohen, P.R., Morgan, J., Pollack, M.E. (eds.) Intentions in communication, pp. 221–256 (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doyle, J.: Rationality and its role in reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 8 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 1993, pp. 852–857 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pearl, J.: From conditional ought to qualitative decision theory. In: Proceedings of UAI 1993, pp. 12–20 (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a bdi architecture. In: Proceedings of KR 1991 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: An abstract architecture for rational agents. In: Proceedings of KR 1992 (1992)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Bdi agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations