Postulates for revising BDI structures
The process of rationally revising beliefs in the light of new information is a topic of great importance and long-standing interest in artificial intelligence. Moreover, significant progress has been made in understanding the philosophical, logical, and computational foundations of belief revision. However, very little research has been reported with respect to the revision of other mental states, most notably propositional attitudes such as desires and intentions. In this paper, we present a first attempt to formulate a general framework for understanding the revision of mental states. We develop an abstract belief-desire-intention model of agents, and introduce a notion of rationality for this model. We then present a series of formal postulates characterizing the processes of adding beliefs, desires, and intentions, updating costs and values, and removing beliefs, desires, and intentions. We also investigate the computational complexity of several problems involving the abstract model and comment on algorithms for revision.
KeywordsRevision postulates Belief revision Intention revision BDI agents
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in flux. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Genesereth M. R., Nilsson N. (1987) Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
- Georgeff, M. P., & Lansky, A. L. (1987). Reactive reasoning and planning. In Proceedings of the sixth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-87) (pp. 677–682). Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
- Georgeff, M. P., & Rao, A. S. (1995). The semantics of intention maintenance for rational agents. In Proceedings of the fourteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-95) (pp. 704–710). Montrèal, Quèbec, Canada.Google Scholar
- Huber, M. (1999). JAM: A BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture. In Proceedings of the third international conference on autonomous agents (Agents 99) (pp. 236–243). Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
- Konolige K. (1986) A deduction model of belief. Pitman Publishing: London and Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
- Pollack M. E. (1990) Plans as complex mental attitudes. In: Cohen P. R., Morgan J., Pollack M. E. (eds) Intentions in communication. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 77–104Google Scholar
- Rao, A. S. (1996). AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In W. Van de Velde & J. W. Perram (Eds.), Agents breaking away: Proceedings of the seventh European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world, (LNAI Volume 1038) (pp. 42–55). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
- Rao, A. S. & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In R. Fikes & E. Sandewall (Eds.), Proceedings of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R-91) (pp. 473–484). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
- Rao, A. S. & Georgeff, M. P. (1992) An abstract architecture for rational agents. In C. Rich, W. Swartout, & B. Nebel (Eds.), Proceedings of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR &R-92) (pp. 439–449).Google Scholar
- Wooldridge M. (2000) Reasoning about rational agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar