Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a theory of intention revision

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although the change of beliefs in the face of new information has been widely studied with some success, the revision of other mental states has received little attention from the theoretical perspective. In particular, intentions are widely recognised as being a key attitude for rational agents, and while several formal theories of intention have been proposed in the literature, the logic of intention revision has been hardly considered. There are several reasons for this: perhaps most importantly, intentions are very closely connected with other mental states—in particular, beliefs about the future and the abilities of the agent. So, we cannot study them in isolation. We must consider the interplay between intention revision and the revision of other mental states, which complicates the picture considerably. In this paper, we present some first steps towards a theory of intention revision. We develop a simple model of an agent’s mental states, and define intention revision operators. Using this model, we develop a logic of intention dynamics, and then investigate some of its properties.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alchourrón C.E., Gärdenfors P., & Makinson D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen J.F., Hendler J., Tate A. (ed). (1990). Readings in planning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1998). The nicomachean ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Translated by D. Ross, J. R. Ackrill and O. Urmson.

  • Atkinson, K. (2005). What should we do? Ph.D Thesis, Computer Science Department, the University of Liverpool. www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~katie/ThesisFinal.pdf, retrieved 19 July 2006.

  • Baltag, A., & Moss, L. S. (2004). Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese, 139, 165–224. Knowledge, Rationality & Action 1–60.

  • Bratman M.E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman M.E. (1990). What is intention?. In: Cohen P.R., Morgan J.L., Pollack M.E. (eds). Intentions in communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 15–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratman M.E., Israel D.J., Pollack M.E. (1988). Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence 4, 349–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen P.R., Levesque H.J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen P.R., Levesque H.J. (1990). Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In: Cohen P.R., Morgan J., Pollack M.E. (eds). Intentions in communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 221–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen P.R., Levesque H.J. (1991). Teamwork. Nous 25(4): 487–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett D.C. (1987). The intentional stance. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B., & Verbrugge, R. (2001). Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In C. Castelfranchi, & Y. Lesperance (Eds.), Proceedings agent theories, architectures and languages ATAL, number 1986 in LNAI (pp. 150–166). Berlin: Springer.

  • Dignum F., Conte R. (1998). Intentional agents and goal formation. In: Singh M.P., Rao A., Wooldridge M.J. (eds). Intelligent agents IV (LNAI Vol. 1365). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Germany, pp. 231–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson E.A. (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In van Leeuwen J. (eds). Handbook of theoretical computer science volume B: Formal models and semantics. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 996–1072

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagin R., Halpern J.Y., Moses Y., Vardi M.Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliers, J. R. (1988). A strategic framework for multi-agent cooperative dialogue. In Proceedings of the eighth european conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-88), Munich, Federal Republic of Germany, pp. 415–420.

  • Galliers, J. R. (1988). A theoretical framework for computer models of cooperative dialogue, acknowledging multi-agent conflict. Ph.D thesis, Open University, UK.

  • Georgeff M.P., Lansky A.L. (ed). (1986) Reasoning about actions & plans—proceedings of the 1986 workshop. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgeff, M. P., & Lansky, A. L. (1987). Reactive reasoning and planning. In Proceedings of the sixth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-87), Seattle, WA, pp. 677–682.

  • Georgeff, M. P., & Rao, S. (1995). The semantics of intention maintenance for rational agents. In Proceedings IJCAI (pp. 704–710). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

  • Harel D., Kozen D., Tiuryn J. (2000). Dynamic logic. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hindriks K.V., de Boer F.S., van der Hoek W., Meyer J.-J.Ch. (1999). Agent programming in 3APL. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4): 357–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings N.R. (1992). On being responsible. In: Werner E., Demazeau Y. (eds). Decentralized AI 3—proceedings of the third european workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world (MAAMAW-91). Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 93–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N. R. (1992). Towards a cooperation knowledge level for collaborative problem solving. In Proceedings of the tenth european conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-92), Vienna, Austria, pp. 224–228.

  • Jennings N.R. (1993). Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 8(3): 223–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings N.R. (1993). Specification and implementation of a belief desire joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2(3): 289–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaelbling L.P., Rosenschein S.J. (1990). Action and planning in embedded agents. In: Maes P. (eds). Designing autonomous agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 35–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R., Kaplan S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Katsuno H., Mendelzon A. (1991). On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Allen J.A., Fikes R., Sandewall E. (eds). Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 387–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinny, D., & Georgeff, M. (1991). Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Proceedings of the twelfth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-91), Sydney, Australia, pp. 82–88.

  • Levesque, H. J., Cohen, P. R., & Nunes, J. H. T. (1990). On acting together. In Proceedings of the eighth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-90), Boston, MA, pp. 94–99.

  • McDermott D. (1982). A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans. Cognitive Science 6, 101–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer J.-J.Ch., van der Hoek W., van Linder B. (1999). A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments. Artificial Intelligence 113, 1–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer J.-J.Ch., van der Hoek W. (1995). Epistemic logic for ai and computer science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollack M.E. (1992). The uses of plans. Artificial Intelligence 57(1): 43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao A.S. (1996). AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Van de Velde W., Perram J.W. (eds). Agents breaking away: Proceedings of the seventh european workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world, (LNAI Volume 1038). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Germany, pp. 42–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao A.S., Georgeff M. (1998). Decision procedures for BDI logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3): 293–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao A.S., Georgeff M.P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Fikes R., Sandewall E. (eds). Proceedings of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R-91). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, pp. 473–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao A.S., Georgeff M.P. (1992). An abstract architecture for rational agents. In: Rich C., Swartout W., Nebel B. (eds). Proceedings of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R-92). Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, pp. 439–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J.R. (2001). Rationality in action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M. P. (1992). A critical examination of the Cohen–Levesque theory of intention. In Proceedings of the tenth european conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI-92), Vienna, Austria, pp. 364–368.

  • Skubch H., Thielscher M. (2005). Strategy learning for reasoning agents. In: Gama J. et al. (eds). ECML 2005, number 3720 in LNAI. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 733–740

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem, J., & Liu, F. (2005). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Technical Report PP-2005–2029, University of Amsterdam, 2005. To appear in Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, 17(2), 2007

  • van der Hoek W., van Linder B., Meyer J.-J.Ch. (1999). An integrated modal approach to rational agents. In: Wooldridge M., Rao A. (eds). Foundations of rational agency. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 133–168

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ditmarsch H.P., van der Hoek W., Kooi B. (2003). Concurrent dynamic epistemic logic. In: Hendricks V.F., Jørgensen K.F., Pedersen S.A. (eds). Knowledge contributors, Synthese Library Vol 322. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 45–82

    Google Scholar 

  • van Linder B., van der Hoek W., Meyer J.-J.Ch. (1995). Actions that make you change your mind. In: Laux A., Wansing H. (eds). Knowledge and belief in philosophy and artificial intelligence. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 103–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal J., Durfee E. (1998). Learning nested agent models in an information economy. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 10, 291–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge M. (2000). Reasoning about rational agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge M., Jennings N.R. (1999). The cooperative problem solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(4): 563–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge M., Parsons S.D. (1999). Intention reconsideration reconsidered. In: Müller J.P., Singh M.P., Rao A.S. (eds). Intelligent agents V (LNAI Volume 1555). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Germany, pp. 63–80

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Wiebe van der Hoek & Michael Wooldridge

  2. Department of Computer Science, Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal, Germany

    Wojciech Jamroga

Authors
  1. Wiebe van der Hoek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wojciech Jamroga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Wooldridge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wiebe van der Hoek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W. & Wooldridge, M. Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155, 265–290 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9145-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9145-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation