Goal generation and adoption from partially trusted beliefs

Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Volumn 178, Issue , 2008, Pages 453-457

  Da Costa Pereira, Célia ^a   Tettamanzi, Andrea G B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONVENTIONAL APPROACH; MENTAL STATE; PROPOSITIONAL FORMULAS; RATIONAL AGENTS; SOURCES OF INFORMATIONS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE;

EID: 84899863595     PISSN: 09226389     EISSN: 18798314     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-58603-891-5-453     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson, ‘On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.’, J. Symb. Log., 50(2), 510–530, (1985).
2. J. Bell and Z. Huang, ‘Dynamic goal hierarchies’, in PRICAI’96: Proceedings from the Workshop on Intelligent Agent Systems, Theoretical and Practical Issues, pp. 88–103, London, UK, (1997). Springer-Verlag.
3. J. Broersen, M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre, ‘Goal generation in the BOID architecture’, Cognitive Science Quarterly Journal, 2(3–4), 428–447, (2002).
4. C. Castelfranchi, R. Falcone, and G. Pezzulo, ‘Trust in information sources as a source for trust: a fuzzy approach’, in Proceedings of AAMAS’03, pp. 89–96, (2003).
5. P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, ‘Intention is choice with commitment’, Artif. Intell., 42(2-3), 213–261, (1990).
6. C. da Costa Pereira and A. Tettamanzi, ‘Towards a framework for goal revision’, in Proceedings of BNAIC’06, pp. 99–106, (2006).
7. C. da Costa Pereira and A. Tettamanzi, ‘Goal generation with relevant and trusted beliefs’, in Proceedings of AAMAS’08, pp. 397–404, (2008).
8. M. Dalal, ‘Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision’, in AAAI, pp. 475–479, (1988).
9. F. Dignum, D. N. Kinny, and E. A. Sonenberg, ‘From desires, obligations and norms to goals.’, Cognitive Science Quarterly ., 2(3-4), 407–427, (2002).
10. P. Gärdenfors, ‘Belief revision: A vademecum’, in Meta-Programming in Logic, 1–10, Springer, Berlin, (1992).
11. S. O. Hansson, ‘Ten philosophical problems in belief revision’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(1), 37–49, (February 2003).
12. H. Katsuno and A. O. Mendelzon, ‘Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change’, Artif. Intell., 52(3), 263–294, (1991).
13. S. Parsons and P. Giorgini, ‘An approach to using degrees of belief in BDI agents’, in Information, Uncertainty, Fusion, eds., B. Bouchon-Meunier, R. R. Yager, and L. A. Zadeh, Kluwer, Dordrecht, (1999).
14. A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, ‘Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture’, in Proceedings of KR’91, pp. 473–484, (1991).
15. S. Shapiro, Y. Lespérance, and H. J. Levesque, ‘Goal change’, in Proceedings of IJCAI’05, pp. 582–588, (2005).
16. J. Thangarajah, L. Padgham, and J. Harland, ‘Representation and reasoning for goals in BDI agents’, in Proceedings of CRPITS’02, pp. 259–265, (2002).
17. R. H. Thomason, ‘Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals’, in Proceedings of KR’00, pp. 702–713, (2000).
18. M. Birna van Riemsdijk, Cognitive Agent Programming: A Semantic Approach, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht, 2006.
19. L. A. Zadeh, ‘Fuzzy sets’, Information and Control, 8, 338–353, (1965).