A Model of Intention with (Un)Conditional Commitments

  • Dongmo Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7458)

Abstract

This paper proposes a model of intention with conditional/ unconditional commitments based on Cohen and Levesque’s (C&L’s for short) framework of intention. We first examine C&L’s framework with a well-known philosophical puzzle, the Toxin Puzzle, and point out its insufficiency in modelling conditional and unconditional commitments. We then propose a model theory of a specific modal logic with modalities representing the typical mental attributes as well as action feasibility and realisibility. Instead of defining intention as a persistent goal, we define an intention as a conditional/unconditional commitment made for achieving a goal that is believed to be achievable. Finally we check our framework with the Toxin Puzzle and show our solution to the puzzle.

Keywords

Modal Logic Accessibility Relation Dynamic Logic Computation Sequence Primitive Action 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artif. Intell. 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modelling rational agents within BDI architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 1991, pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyer, J.J.C., van der Hoek, W., van Linder, B.: A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments. Artif. Intell. 113(1-2), 1–40 (1999)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J.C.: Formalising abilities and opportunities of agents. Fundamenta Informaticae 34(1-2), 53–101 (1998)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a logic of rational agency. Logic Journal of the IGPL 11(2), 135–159 (2003)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmdit, R., Tishkovsky, D., Hustadt, U.: Interactions between knowledge, action and commitment within agent dynamic logic. Studia Logica 78, 381–415 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D.: C&l intention revisited. In: KR, pp. 527–535 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lorini, E., Herzig, A.: A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese 163(1), 45–77 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorini, E., van Ditmarsch, H.P., Lima, T.D., Lima, T.D.: A logical model of intention and plan dynamics. In: ECAI, pp. 1075–1076 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schmidt, R.A., Tishkovsky, D.: On combinations of propositional dynamic logic and doxastic modal logics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(1), 109–129 (2008)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kavka, G.S.: The toxin puzzle. Analysis 43(1), 33–36 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh, M.P.: A critical examination of the cohen-levesque theory of intentions. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Artificial intelligence, ECAI 1992, pp. 364–368. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Decision procedures for bdi logics. J. Log. Comput. 8(3), 293–342 (1998)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andreou, C.: The newxin puzzle. Philosophical Studies, 1–9 (July 2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bratman, M.E.: Toxin, temptation, and the stability of intention. In: Coleman, J.L., Morris, C.W. (eds.) Rational Commitment and Social Justice: Essays for Gregory Kavka, pp. 59–83. Cambridge University (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gauthier, D.: Rethinking the toxin puzzle. In: Coleman, J.L., Morris, C.W. (eds.) Rational Commitment and Social Justice: Essays for Gregory Kavka, pp. 47–58. Cambridge University Press (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harman, G.: The toxin puzzle. In: Coleman, J.L., Morris, C.W. (eds.) Rational Commitment and Social Justice: Essays for Gregory Kavka, pp. 84–89. Cambridge University (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. The MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davidson, D.: Essays on Actions and Events. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1980)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meiland, J.W.: The Nature of Intention. Methuen & Co Ltd. (1970)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dongmo Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Systems LaboratoryUniversity of Western SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations