Goal generation with relevant and trusted beliefs

A rational agent adopts (or changes) its goals when new information (beliefs) becomes available or its desires (e.g., tasks it is supposed to carry out) change. In conventional approaches to goal generation in which a goal is considered as a "particular" desire, a goal is adopted if and only if all conditions leading to its generation are satisfied. It is then supposed that all beliefs are equally relevant and their sources completely trusted. However, that is not a realistic setting. In fact, depending on the agent's trust in the source of a piece of information, an agent may decide how strongly it takes into consideration such piece of information in goal generation. On the other hand, not all beliefs are equally relevant to the adoption of a given goal, and a given belief may not be equally relevant to the adoption of different goals. We propose an approach which takes into account both the relevance of beliefs and the trust degree of the source from which the corresponding piece of information comes, in desire/goal generation. Two algorithms for updating the mental state of an agent in this new setting and three ways for comparing the resulting fuzzy set of desires have been given. Finally, two fundamental postulates any rational goal election function should obey have been stated.

[1]  René Witte,et al.  Fuzzy belief revision , 2002, NMR.

[2]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Goal Change , 2005, IJCAI.

[3]  Avelino Francisco Zorzo,et al.  Propositional planning in BDI agents , 2004, SAC '04.

[4]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  An approach to ordinal decision making , 1995, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[5]  Rino Falcone,et al.  Trust in information sources as a source for trust: a fuzzy approach , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[6]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  Desires and Defaults: A Framework for Planning with Inferred Goals , 2000, KR.

[7]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Possibility Theory as a Basis for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1995, IJCAI.

[8]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  An Argumentation-Based Approach for Practical Reasoning , 2006, ArgMAS.

[9]  Zhisheng Huang,et al.  Dynamic Goal Hierarchies , 1996, PRICAI Workshop on Intelligent Agent Systems.

[10]  F. Dignum,et al.  From Desires, Obligations and Norms to Goals , 2002 .

[11]  C. Castelfranchi,et al.  Social Trust : A Cognitive Approach , 2000 .

[12]  Andrea G. B. Tettamanzi,et al.  Towards a framework for goal revision , 2006 .

[13]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[14]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[15]  M. B. vanRiemsdijk.  Cognitive Agent Programming : a semantic approach , 2006 .

[16]  Jérôme Lang,et al.  Planning with graded nondeterministic actions: A possibilistic approach , 1997 .

[17]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Goal generation in the BOID architecture , 2002 .

[18]  L. Zadeh.  Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility , 1999 .

[19]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[20]  Rino Falcone,et al.  Trust dynamics: how trust is influenced by direct experiences and by trust itself , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[21]  Lin Padgham,et al.  Representation and Reasoning for Goals in BDI Agents , 2002, ACSC.