发表机构
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Temple University, USA（计算机与信息科学系，特拉华大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
研究非公理逻辑中目标推理里回避表示不清的问题，扩展框架定义反目标，引入心理操作“防止”，通过案例研究验证所得规则能区分追求、被动回避、主动预防和保留行动，清晰表示回避，联系反目标与普通目标推理。
AI 中文摘要
非公理逻辑（NAL）中的目标推理解释了自适应系统如何在知识和资源不足的情况下推导出实现期望事件的手段。然而，回避的表示尚不清楚。常见的惯例是将“避免G”表示为目标句子“¬G！”，但这种表示法混淆了两种不同的解读：追求否定事件¬G和避免肯定事件G。本文表明，这种混淆可能产生一种矛盾的情况，即回避意图仅仅因为行动通常伴随着没有伤害而转化为采取行动的积极目标。从NAL的目标基本定义出发，该框架通过反目标的相应定义进行扩展，以便可以表示回避而不将其视为对否定事件的追求。最后，引入了一种心理操作，即“防止”，以在主动预防的情况下将反目标推理与普通目标推理联系起来。四个最小案例研究验证了所得规则区分了追求、被动回避、主动预防和保留行动以维护期望事件。
英文摘要
Goal reasoning in Non-Axiomatic Logic (NAL) explains how an adaptive system derives means for realizing desired events under insufficient knowledge and resources. However, the representation of avoidance is less clear. A common convention is to express ``avoid $G$'' as the goal sentence ``$\neg G!$'', but this notation conflates two different readings: pursuing the negated event $\neg G$, and avoiding the positive event $G$. This paper shows that the conflation can produce a paradoxical case in which an avoidance intention is converted into a positive goal to act merely because acting is usually followed by the absence of hurt. Starting from NAL's basic definition of goals, the framework is extended with a corresponding definition of anti-goals, so that avoidance can be represented without treating it as the pursuit of a negated event. Finally, a mental operation, $\op{prevent}$, is introduced to connect anti-goal reasoning with ordinary goal reasoning in cases of active prevention. Four minimal case studies check that the resulting rules distinguish pursuit, passive avoidance, active prevention, and withholding action to preserve a desired event.
