Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resolving Conflicts between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions, and Desires

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty (ECSQARU 2001)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2143))

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the KR’94, pages 75–86, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Michael E. Bratman. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G. Brewka and T. Eiter. Preferred answer sets for extended logic programs. Artificial Intelligence, 109:297–356, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. J. Broersen, M. Dastani, Z. Huang, J. Hulstijn, and L. van derTorre. The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. In Proceedings of International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AA’01), 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261, 1990.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. F. Dignum. Autonomous agents and norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7:69–79, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. F. Dignum, D. Morley, E.A. Sonenberg, and L. Cavedon. Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In Proceedings of the ICMAS 2000, pages 111–118, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thomas Eiter, V.S. Subrahmanian, and George Pick. Heterogeneous active agents I: Semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 108(1–2):179–255, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. D. Makinson. On a fundamental problem of deontic logic. In Norms, logics and information systems, pages 29–53. IOS Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. Makinson and L. van der Torre. Input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29:383–408, 2000.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. D. Makinson and L. van der Torre. Constraints for input-output logics. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 30(2):155–185, 2001.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. V.W. Marek and M. Truszczynski. Nonmonotonic logic: Context-dependent reasoning. Springer, Berlin, 1993.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. J. Pearl. From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory. In Proceedings of the UAI’93, pages 12–20, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Rao and M. Georgeff. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS’95), pages 312–319, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132, 1980.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. R. Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32:57–95, 1987.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. K. Schild. On the relationship between BDI logics and standard logics of concurrency. Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent systems, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. Thomason. Desires and defaults: a framework for planning with inferred goals. In Proceedings of the KR’2000, pages 702–713. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  19. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 27:49–78, 1999.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7:51–67, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. G.H. von Wright. Norms, truth and logic. Practical Reason. Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Artificial Intelligence, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Nederlands

    Jan Broersen, Mehdi Dastani & Leendert van der Torre

Authors
  1. Jan Broersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehdi Dastani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université Paul Sabatier, IRIT-CNRS, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse Cedex 4, France

    Salem Benferhat  & Philippe Besnard  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L. (2001). Resolving Conflicts between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions, and Desires. In: Benferhat, S., Besnard, P. (eds) Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty. ECSQARU 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2143. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_50

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44652-4_50

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-42464-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44652-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation