Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Utilitarian Desires

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Autonomous agents reason frequently about preferences such as desires and goals. In this paper we propose a logic of desires with a utilitarian semantics, in which we study nonmonotonic reasoning about desires and preferences based on the idea that desires can be understood in terms of utility losses (penalties for violations) and utility gains (rewards for fulfillments). Our logic allows for a systematic study and classification of desires, for example by distinguishing subtly different ways to add up these utility losses and gains. We propose an explicit construction of the agent's preference relation from a set of desires together with different kinds of knowledge. A set of desires extended with knowledge induces a set of ‘distinguished’ utility functions by adding up the utility losses and gains of the individual desires, and these distinguished utility functions induce the preference relation.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. F. Bacchus and A. Grove, “Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory,” in Proc. Fifth Int.Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'96), 1996, pp. 542-552.

  2. J. Bell and Z. Huang, “Dynamic goal hierarchies,” in Intelligent Agent Systems, Theoretical and Practical Issues, 1997, pp. 88-103.

  3. M. Belzer, “A logic of deliberation,” in Proc. Fifth National Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'86), 1986, pp. 38-43.

  4. S. Benferhat, C. Cayrol, D. Dubois, J. Lang, and H. Prade, “Inconsistency management and prioritized syntax-based entailment,” in Proc. Thirteenth Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'93), 1993, pp. 640-645.

  5. C. Boutilier, “Towards a logic for qualitative decision theory,” in Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), 1994, pp. 75-86.

  6. C. Castelfranchi, F. Dignum, C. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Deliberate normative agents: principles and architecture,” in Intelligent Agents VI. Proc. Sixth Int. Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ATAL'99, 2000.

  7. L. Cholvy and F. Cuppens, “Solving normative con.icts by merging roles,” in Proc. Fifth Int. Conf. Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL'95), Washington, 1995.

  8. P. Cohen and H. Levesque, “Intention is choice with commitment,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 42, no. 2-3, pp. 213-261, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. T. Dean and M. Wellman, Planning and Control, Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. Doyle, “A model for deliberation, action and introspection,” Technical Report AI-TR-581, MIT AI Laboratory, 1980.

  11. J. Doyle, “Rationality and its rules in reasoning (extended abstract),” in Proc. Tenth National Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'91), 1991, pp. 1093-1100.

  12. J. Doyle and R. Thomason, “Background to qualitative decision theory,” AI Magazine, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 55-68, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Doyle and M. Wellman, “Preferential semantics for goals,” in Proc. Tenth National Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'91), 1991, pp. 698-703.

  14. J. Doyle, Y. Shoham, and M. Wellman, “The logic of relative desires,” in Sixth Int. Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Charlotte, NC, 1991.

  15. D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Possibility theory as a basis for qualitative decision theory,” in Proc. Fourteenth Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI'95), 1995, pp. 1924-1930.

  16. M. Gelfond and V. Lisfchitz, “Representing action and change by logic programs,” in J. Logic Programming, vol. 17, pp. 301-322, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M. Goldszmidt, P. Morris, and J. Pearl, “A maximum entropy approach to nonmonotonic reasoning,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 220-232, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  18. P. Haddawy and S. Hanks, “Representations for decision-theoretic planning: utility functions for dead-line goals,” in Proc. Third Int. Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'92), Cambridge, MA, 1992.

  19. B. Hansson, “An analysis of some deontic logics,” in R. Hilpinen (ed.), Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings, D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, Holland, 1971, pp. 121-147.

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. Horty, “Moral dilemmas and nonmonotonic logic,” J. Philosophical Logic, vol. 23, pp. 35-65, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  21. N. Jennings and J. Campos, “Towards a social level characterisation of socially responsible agents,” IEEE Proc. Software Engeneering, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 11-25, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  22. R. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs, John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Lang, “Conditional desires and utilities-an alternative approach to qualitative decision theory,” in Proc. Twelth European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'96), 1996, pp. 318-322.

  24. D. Lehmann, “Generalized qualitative probability: Savage revisited,” in Proc. Twelth Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'96), 1996, pp. 381-388.

  25. D. Lehmann, “Non-standard numbers for qualitative decision making,” in Proc. Seventh Conf. Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK'98), 1998, pp. 161-174.

  26. D. Lehmann and M. Magidor, “What does a conditional knowledge base entail?” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 55, pp. 1-60, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. Makinson, “Five faces of minimality,” Studia Logica, vol. 52, pp. 339-379, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. Makinson, “General patterns in nonmonotonic reasoning,” in Gabbay, Hogger, and Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1994, pp. 35-110.

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Neapolitan, Probabilistic Reasoning in Expert Systems, John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. Pearl, “From conditional ought to qualitative decision theory,” in Proc. Ninth Conf. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'93), 1993, pp. 12-20.

  31. H. Prakken and M. Sergot, “Contrary-to-duty obligations,” Studia Logica, vol. 57, pp. 91-115, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. Rao and M. Georgeff, “Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture,” in Proc. Second Int. Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'91), 1991, pp. 473-484.

  33. S.-W. Tan and J. Pearl, “Qualitative decision theory,” in Proc. Thirteenth National Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'93), 1994a.

  34. S.-W. Tan and J. Pearl, “Specification and evaluation of preferences under uncertainty,” in Proc. Fourth Int. Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), 1994b, pp. 530-539.

  35. Y. Tan and L. van der Torre, “How to combine ordering and minimizing in a deontic logic based on preference,” in Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Proc. Third Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (4eon'96), 1996, pp. 216-232.

  36. R. Thomason, “Desires and defaults: a framework for planning with inferred goals,” in Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'2000), 2000, pp. 702-713.

  37. R. Thomason and R. Horty, “Nondeterministic action and Dominance: foundations for planning and qualitative decision,” in Proc. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (TARK'96), 1996, pp. 229-250.

  38. L. van der Torre, “Violated obligations in a defeasible deontic logic,” in Proc. Eleventh European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'94), 1994, pp. 371-375.

  39. L. van der Torre, “Labeled logics of goals,” in Proc. Thirteenth European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'98), 1998, pp. 368-369.

  40. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, “Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 27, pp. 49-78, 1999a.

    Google Scholar 

  41. L. van der Torre and Y. Tan, “Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7, pp. 51-67, 1999b.

    Google Scholar 

  42. L. van der Torre and E. Weydert, “Parameters for utilitarian desires in a qualitative decision theory,” Applied Intelligence, 2000.

  43. J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theories of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, 1944.

  44. G. von Wright, Norms Truth and Logic. Practical Reason, Blackwell: Oxford, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. Wainer, “Yet another semantics for goals and goal priorities,” in Proc. Eleventh European Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'94), 1994, pp. 269-273.

  46. E. Weydert, “System JZ: How to build a canonical ranking model of a default knowledge base,” in Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'98), 1998, pp. 190-201.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse, Université Paul Sabatier, 31062, Toulouse Cedex (, France

    Jérôme Lang

  2. Vrije Universiteit, de Boelelaan 1081a, 1081, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Leendert van der Torre

  3. Max-Planck-Institute for Computer Science, Im Stadtwald, D-66123, Saarbrücken, Germany

    Emil Weydert

Authors
  1. Jérôme Lang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emil Weydert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lang, J., van der Torre, L. & Weydert, E. Utilitarian Desires. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5, 329–363 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015508524218

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015508524218

Search

Navigation