Advertisement

Abstract

We present a logical approach to intention change. Inspired by Bratman’s theory, we define intention as the choice to perform a given action at a certain time point in the future. This notion is modeled in a modal logic containing a temporal modality and modal operators for belief and choice. Intention change is then modeled by a specific kind of dynamic operator, that we call ‘local assignment’. This is an operation on the model that changes the truth value of atomic formulae at specific time points. Two particular kinds of intention change are considered in some detail: intention generation and intention reconsideration.

Keywords

Modal Logic Physical World Belief Revision Atomic Formula Mental Attitude 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S.: The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions. In: Proceedings of TARK 1998, pp. 43–56. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, J., Huang, Z.: Dynamic goal hierarchies. Intelligent Agent Systems Theoretical and Practical Issues, 88–103 (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Benthem, J., Liu, F.: Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17(2), 157–182 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bratman, M.: Intentions, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 431–450 (2002); special issue on Desires, goals, intentions, and values: Computational architecturesGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cleaver, T.W., Sattar, A.: Intention guided belief revision. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2007, pp. 36–41. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dignum, F., Kinny, D.: From desires, obligations and norms to goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 407–430 (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library Series, vol. 337. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Ditmarsch, H., Kooi, B.: Semantic results for ontic and epistemic change. In: Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory (LOFT 7)., pp. 87–117. Texts in Logic and Games, Amsterdam University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective intentions. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(3), 271–295 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Georgeff, M.P., Rao, A.S.: The semantics of intention maintenance for rational agents. In: Proceedings of IJCAI 1995, pp. 704–710 (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2), 265–290 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Icard, T., Pacuit, E., Shoham, Y.: Joint revision of beliefs and intention. In: Proceedings of KR 2010, pp. 572–574 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khan, S.M., Lesperance, Y.: A logical framework for prioritized goal change. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2010, pp. 283–290 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, F.: Changing for the Better: Preference Dynamics and Agent Diversity. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lorini, E., Herzig, A.: A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese 163(1), 45–77 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lorini, E., van Ditmarsch, H., de Lima, T.: Logical model of intention and plan dynamics. In: Coelho, H., Studer, R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Proceedings of ECAI 2010, pp. 1075–1076. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meyer, J.J.C., van der Hoek, W., van Linder, B.: A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments. Artificial Intelligence 113(1-2), 1–40 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of KR 1991, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodenhäuser, B.: Intentions in interaction. In: Proceedings of LOFT 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahlqvist, H.: Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logics. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Scandinavian Logic Symposium 1973, Studies in Logic, vol. (82) (1975)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shoham, Y.: Logics of intention and the database perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(6), 633–647 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh, M., Asher, N.: A logic of intentions and beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 513–544 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Von Wright, G.H.: On so-called practical inference. The Philosophical Review 15, 39–53 (1972)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wooldridge, M.: Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans van Ditmarsch
    • 1
  • Tiago de Lima
    • 2
  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 3
  1. 1.University of SevillaSpain
  2. 2.CRILUniversity of Artois and CNRSFrance
  3. 3.IRIT, CNRSFrance

Personalised recommendations