不确定条件下程序目标不相容的处理
Dealing with Incompatibilities among Procedural Goals under Uncertainty
摘要：
通过考虑理性的代理人，我们专注于从一组不相容的目标中选择目标的问题。我们认为三种形式的不兼容性介绍了Castelfranchi和Paglieri，即终端，工具（或基于资源），和多余的。我们代表代理人的计划，通过结构化的参数，其前提是弥漫着不确定性。我们衡量这些论点的强度，以确定一组兼容的目标。我们提出了两种新的方法来计算这些参数的强度，这取决于它们之间存在的不相容性。第一个是逻辑强度值，它由一个三维向量表示，该向量是从与每个参数相关联的概率区间计算的。向量表示区间的精度、区间的位置以及精度和位置的组合。结构化论证的强度的这种类型的表示和处理之前还没有被现有技术所定义。计算论证强度的第二种方式是基于计划的成本（关于必要的资源）和与计划相关联的目标的偏好。考虑到我们的新方法来衡量结构化参数的强度，我们提出了一个语义的选择的计划和目标，是基于Dung的抽象论证理论。最后，我们对我们的建议进行了理论评价。
英文摘要：
By considering rational agents, we focus on the problem of selecting goals out of a set of incompatible ones. We consider three forms of incompatibility introduced by Castelfranchi and Paglieri, namely the terminal, the instrumental (or based on resources), 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 these arguments in order to determine the set of compatible goals. We propose two novel ways for calculating the strength of these arguments, depending on the kind of incompatibility that exists between them. The first one is the logical strength value, it is denoted by a three-dimensional vector, which is calculated 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. The second way for calculating the strength of the argument is based on the cost of the plans (regarding the necessary resources) and the preference of the goals associated with the plans. 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. Finally, we make a theoretical evaluation of our proposal.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
