, Volume 175, Supplement 1, pp 39–62 | Cite as

Postulates for revising BDI structures

  • John Grant
  • Sarit Kraus
  • Donald Perlis
  • Michael Wooldridge


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.


Revision postulates Belief revision Intention revision BDI agents 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alchourron C. E., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baral C., Zhang Y. (2005) Knowledge updates: Semantics and complexity issues. Artificial Intelligence 164(1–2): 209–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bordini R., Hübner J. F., Wooldridge M. (2007) Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen P. R., Levesque H. J. (1990) Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42: 213–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dunne P. E., Wooldridge M., Laurence M. (2005) The complexity of contract negotiation. Artificial Intelligence 164(1–2): 23–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gärdenfors P. (1988) Knowledge in flux. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Genesereth M. R., Nilsson N. (1987) Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. Konolige K. (1986) A deduction model of belief. Pitman Publishing: London and Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Pollack M. E. (1992) The uses of plans. Artificial Intelligence 57(1): 43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Rao A. S., Georgeff M. P. (1998) Decision procedures for BDI logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3): 293–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shoham Y. (2009) Logical theories of intention and the database perspective. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38(6): 633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van der Hoek W., Jamroga W., Wooldridge M. (2007) Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2): 265–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wooldridge M. (2000) Reasoning about rational agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Grant
    • 1
  • Sarit Kraus
    • 2
    • 3
  • Donald Perlis
    • 4
  • Michael Wooldridge
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTowson UniversityTowsonUSA
  2. 2.Bar-Ilan UniversityRamat-GanIsrael
  3. 3.Institute for Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations