2010
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-11355-0_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prioritized Goals and Subgoals in a Logical Account of Goal Change – A Preliminary Report

Abstract: Abstract. Most previous logical accounts of goal change do not deal with prioritized goals and do not handle subgoals and their dynamics properly. Many are restricted to achievement goals. In this paper, we develop a logical account of goal change that addresses these deficiencies. In our account, we do not drop lower priority goals permanently when they become inconsistent with other goals and the agent's knowledge; rather, we make such goals inactive. We ensure that the agent's chosen goals/intentions are co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…SubGoal(ψ, φ, s)) iff there is a G-accessibility level n in s such that φ is a p-goal at n while ψ is not, and for all G-accessibility levels in s where ψ is a p-goal, φ is also a p-goal. See [15,11] for details of our formalization of subgoals.…”
Section: Handling Subgoalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…SubGoal(ψ, φ, s)) iff there is a G-accessibility level n in s such that φ is a p-goal at n while ψ is not, and for all G-accessibility levels in s where ψ is a p-goal, φ is also a p-goal. See [15,11] for details of our formalization of subgoals.…”
Section: Handling Subgoalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our framework combines ideas from the situation calculus-based Golog family of APLs (e.g. [6]), our expressive semantic formalization of prioritized goals, subgoals, and their dynamics [13,15], and work on BDI APLs. We ensure that the agent's chosen declarative goals and adopted plans are consistent with each other and with the agent's knowledge.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%