| Popis: |
By considering rational agents, we focus on the problem of selecting goals out of a set of incompatible ones. We consider two forms of incompatibility introduced by Castelfranchi and Paglieri, namely the terminal and the superfluity. We represent the agent’s plans by means of structured arguments whose premises are pervaded with uncertainty. We measure the strength of such arguments in order to determine the set of compatible goals. In this settings, we represent a novel strength value defined by a three-dimensional vector determined from a probabilistic interval associated with each argument. The vector represents the precision of the interval, the location of it, and the combination of precision and location. This type of representation and treatment of the strength of a structured argument has not been defined before by the state of the art. Considering our novel approach for measuring the strength of structured arguments, we propose a semantics for the selection of plans and goals that is based on Dung’s abstract argumentation theory. |
