Preference Generation for Autonomous Agents

  • Umair Rafique
  • Shell Ying Huang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6251)


An intelligent agent situated in an environment needs to know the preferred states it is expected to achieve or maintain so that it can work towards achieving or maintaining them. We refer to all these preferred states as “preferences”. The preferences an agent has selected to bring about at a given time are called “goals”. This selection of preferences as goals is generally referred to as “goal generation”. Basic aim behind goal generation is to provide the agent with a way of getting new goals. Although goal generation results in an increase in the agent’s knowledge about its goals, the overall autonomy of the agent does not increase as its goals are derived from its preferences (which are programmed). We argue that to achieve greater autonomy, an agent must be able to generate new preferences. In this paper we discuss how an agent can generate new preferences based on analogy between new objects and the objects it has known preferences for.


Autonomous Agents BDI Goal Generation Preference Generation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aha, D.W., Kibler, D., Albert, M.K.: Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learning 6(1), 37–66 (1991)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bratman, M.: Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 428–447 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clement, B.J., Durfee, E.H.: Theory for coordinating concurrent hierarchical planning agents using summary information. In: Proceedings of AAAI, pp. 495–502 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cover, T., Hart, P.E.: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13(1), 21–27 (1967)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    da Costa Pereira, C., Tettamanzi, A.G.B.: Goal generation with relevant and trusted beliefs. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’08, pp. 397–404 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F., Kinny, D.: From desires, obligations and norms to goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maslow, A.: Motivation and Personality. Harper & Row, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rafique, U., Huang, S.Y.: A new action description scheme for informal reasoning. In: Arabnia, H.R., de la Fuente, D., Olivas, J.A. (eds.) Proceedings of ICAI’09, vol. II, pp. 582–588 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reiss, S.: Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology 8(3), 179–193 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon, H.: Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Psychological Review 74(1), 29–39 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simpson, R., Schreckenghost, D., LoPresti, E., Kirsch, N.: Plans and planning in smart homes. In: Augusto, J.C., Nugent, C.D. (eds.) Designing Smart Homes. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4008, pp. 71–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Yorke-Smith, N.: A soft COP model for goal deliberation in a BDI agent. In: CP’07 Workshop on Constraint Modelling and Reformulation (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Harland, J.: Representation and reasoning for goals in BDI agents. Australian Computer Science Communications 24(1), 259–265 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting & exploiting positive goal interaction in intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’03, pp. 401–408. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting and avoiding interference between goals in intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 721–726. Academic Press, London (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomason, R.H.: Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In: Proceedings of KR 2000, pp. 702–713 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Birna van Riemsdijk, M., Dastani, M., Winikoff, M.: Goals in agent systems: a unifying framework. In: Proceedings of AAMAS’08, pp. 713–720 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wettschereck, D., Aha, D.W., Mohri, T.: A review and empirical evaluation of feature weighting methods for a class of lazy learning algorithms. Artificial Intelligence Review 11, 273–314 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Randall Wilson, D., Martinez, T.R.: Improved heterogeneous distance functions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 6, 1–34 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Umair Rafique
    • 1
  • Shell Ying Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingapore

Personalised recommendations