Deciding between Conflicting Influences

  • Andreas Schmidt Jensen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8245)


This paper investigates an approach of decision making internally in an agent where a decision is based on preference and expectation. The approach uses a logic for qualitative decision theory proposed by Boutilier to express such notions. To make readily use of this we describe a simple method for generating preference and expectation models that respect certain rules provided by the agents, and we briefly discuss how to integrate the approach into an existing agent programming language.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alechina, N., Dastani, M., Logan, B.: Programming Norm-Aware Agents. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2012, vol. 2, pp. 1057–1064. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alechina, N., Jago, M., Logan, B.: Resource-bounded belief revision and contraction. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U., Omicini, A., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3904, pp. 141–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boutilier, C.: Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory. In: Proceedings of the KR 1994, pp. 75–86. Morgan Kaufmann (1994)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., Torre, L.v.d.: The BOID Architecture – Conflicts Between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desires. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 9–16. ACM Press (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dastani, M., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Role-assignment in open agent societies. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, pp. 489–496. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E.A., Cavedon, L.: Towards Socially Sophisticated BDI Agents. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS 2000), pp. 111–118. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, F., Kinny, D., Sonenberg, L.: From Desires, Obligations and Norms to Goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hindriks, K.V.: Programming Rational Agents in GOAL. Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications 2, 119–157 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Torre, L., Tan, Y.H.: Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27(1-4), 49–78 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Schmidt Jensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer ScienceTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations