The economic theory of rationality promises to equal mathematical logic in its importance for the mechanization of reasoning. We survey the growing literature on how the basic notions of probability, utility, and rational choice, coupled with practical limitations on information and resources, influence the design and analysis of reasoning and representation systems. 1 Introduction People make judgments of rationality all the time, usually in criticizing someone else's thoughts or deeds as irrational, or in defending their own as rational. Artificial intelligence researchers construct systems and theories to perform or describe rational thought and action, criticizing and defending these systems and theories in terms similar to but more formal than those of the man or woman on the street. Judgments of human rationality commonly involve several different conceptions of rationality, including a logical conception used to judge thoughts, and an economic one used to judge actions or...

Goals, as typically conceived in AI planning, provide an insufficient basis for choice of action, and hence are deficient as the sole expression of an agent's objectives. Decision-theoretic utilities offer a more adequate basis, yet lack many of the computational advantages of goals. We provide a preferential semantics for goals that grounds them in decision theory and preserves the validity of some, but not all, common goal operations performed in planning. This semantic account provides a criterion for verifying the design of goal-based planning strategies, thus providing a new framework for knowledge-level analysis of planning systems. Planning to achieve goals In the predominant AI planning paradigm, planners construct plans designed to produce states satisfying particular conditions called goals. Each goal represents a partition of possible states of the world into those satisfying and those not satisfying the goal. Though planners use goals to guide their reasoning, the crude b...

Research on nonmonotonic and default reasoning has identified several important criteria for preferring alternative default inferences. The theories of reasoning based on each of these criteria may uniformly be viewed as theories of rational inference, in which the reasoner selects maximally preferred states of belief. Though researchers have noted some cases of apparent conflict between the preferences supported by different theories, it has been hoped that these special theories of reasoning may be combined into a universal logic of nonmonotonic reasoning. We show that the different categories of preferences conflict more than has been realized, and adapt formal results from social choice theory to prove that every universal theory of default reasoning will violate at least one reasonable principle of rational reasoning. Our results can be interpreted as demonstrating that, within the preferential framework, we cannot expect much improvement on the rigid lexicographic priority mechanisms that have been proposed for conflict resolution.

Theories of rational belief revision recently proposed by Alchourr'on, Gardenfors, Makinson, and Nebel illuminate many important issues but impose unnecessarily strong standards for correct revisions and make strong assumptions about what information is available to guide revisions. We reconstruct these theories according to an economic standard of rationality in which preferences are used to select among alternative possible revisions. By permitting multiple partial specifications of preferences in ways closely related to preference-based nonmonotonic logics, the reconstructed theory employs information closer to that available in practice and offers more flexible ways of selecting revisions. We formally compare this new conception of rational belief revision with the original theories, adapt results about universal default theories to prove that there is unlikely to be any universal method of rational belief revision, and examine formally how different limitations on rationality affe...

this article is on protocols allowing the well-functioning parts of such a large and complex system to carry out their work despite the failure of others. Many deep and interesting results on such problems have been discovered by computer scientists in recent years, the incorporation of which into game theory can greatly enrich this field