Autonomous agents operating in a dynamic environment must be able to reason and make decisions about actions in pursuit of their goals. In addition, in a normative environment an agent's actions are not only directed by the agent's goals, but also by the norms imposed on the agent. Practical reasoning is reasoning about what to do in a given situation, particularly in the presence of conflicts between the agent's practical attitude such as goals, plans and norms. In this thesis we aim: (i) to introduce a model for normative practical reasoning that allows the agents to plan for multiple and potentially conflicting goals and norms at the same time (ii) to implement the model both formally and computationally, (iii) to identify the best plan for the agent to execute by means of argumentation framework and grounded semantics, (iv) to justify the best plan via argumentation-based persuasion dialogue for grounded semantics.

In this paper, we introduce a new heuristic search algorithm based on mean values for real-time planning, called MHSP. It consists in associating the principles of UCT, a bandit-based algorithm which gave very good results in computer games, and especially in Computer Go, with heuristic search in order to obtain a real-time planner in the context of classical planning. MHSP is evaluated on different planning problems and compared to existing algorithms performing on-line search and learning. Besides, our results highlight the capacity of MHSP to return plans in a real-time manner which tend to an optimal plan over the time which is faster and of better quality compared to existing algorithms in the literature.

Autonomous agents operating in a dynamic environment must be able to reason and make decisions about actions in pursuit of their goals. In addition, in a normative environment an agent's actions are not only directed by the agent's goals, but also by the norms imposed on the agent. Practical reasoning is reasoning about what to do in a given situation, particularly in the presence of conflicts between the agent's practical attitude such as goals, plans and norms. In this thesis we aim: (i) to introduce a model for normative practical reasoning that allows the agents to plan for multiple and potentially conflicting goals and norms at the same time (ii) to implement the model both formally and computationally, (iii) to identify the best plan for the agent to execute by means of argumentation framework and grounded semantics, (iv) to justify the best plan via argumentation-based persuasion dialogue for grounded semantics.

Soft goals extend the classical model of planning with a simple model of preferences. The best plans are then not the ones with least cost but the ones with maximum utility, where the utility of a plan is the sum of the utilities of the soft goals achieved minus the plan cost. Finding plans with high utility appears to involve two linked problems: choosing a subset of soft goals to achieve and finding a low-cost plan to achieve them. New search algorithms and heuristics have been developed for planning with soft goals, and a new track has been introduced in the International Planning Competition (IPC) to test their performance. In this note, we show however that these extensions are not needed: soft goals do not increase the expressive power of the basic model of planning with action costs, as they can easily be compiled away. We apply this compilation to the problems of the net-benefit track of the most recent IPC, and show that optimal and satisficing cost-based planners do better on the compiled problems than optimal and satisficing net-benefit planners on the original problems with explicit soft goals. Furthermore, we show that penalties, or negative preferences expressing conditions to avoid, can also be compiled away using a similar idea.

Soft goals extend the classical model of planning with a simple model of preferences. The best plans are then not the ones with least cost but the ones with maximum utility, where the utility of a plan is the sum of the utilities of the soft goals achieved minus the plan cost. Finding plans with high utility appears to involve two linked problems: choosing a subset of soft goals to achieve and finding a low-cost plan to achieve them. New search algorithms and heuristics have been developed for planning with soft goals, and a new track has been introduced in the International Planning Competition (IPC) to test their performance. In this note, we show however that these extensions are not needed: soft goals do not increase the expressive power of the basic model of planning with action costs, as they can easily be compiled away. We apply this compilation to the problems of the net-benefit track of the most recent IPC, and show that optimal and satisficing cost-based planners do better on the compiled problems than optimal and satisficing net-benefit planners on the original problems with explicit soft goals. Furthermore, we show that penalties, or negative preferences expressing conditions to avoid, can also be compiled away using a similar idea.