Advertisement

KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 73–83 | Cite as

BDI Logics for BDI Architectures: Old Problems, New Perspectives

  • Andreas Herzig
  • Emiliano Lorini
  • Laurent Perrussel
  • Zhanhao Xiao
Technical Contribution

Abstract

The mental attitudes of belief, desire, and intention play a central role in the design and implementation of autonomous agents. In 1987, Bratman proposed their integration into a belief–desire–intention (BDI) theory that was seminal in AI. Since then numerous approaches were built on the BDI paradigm, both practical (BDI architectures and BDI agents) and formal (BDI logics). The logical approaches that were most influential are due to Cohen and Levesque and to Rao and Georgeff. However, three fundamental problems remain up to now. First, the practical and the formal approaches evolved separately and neither fertilised the other. Second, only few formal approaches addressed some important issues such as the revision of intentions or the fundamentally paraconsistent nature of desires, and it seems fair to say that there is currently no consensical, comprehensive logical account of intentions. Finally, only few publications study the interaction between intention and other concepts that are naturally connected to intention, such as actions, planning, and the revision of beliefs and intentions. Our paper summarizes the state of the art, discusses the main open problems, and sketches how they can be addressed. We argue in particular that research on intention should be better connected to fields such as reasoning about actions, automated planning, and belief revision and update.

Keywords

Belief Desire Intention Goal BDI logic BDI architecture 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our warmest thanks go to the reviewers of the KI Zeitschrift for their thorough reading and thoughtful comments. This work was partially supported by CSC (Chinese Scholarship Council) and by by ANR-11-LABX-0040-CIMI within the program ANR-11-IDEX-0002-02.

References

  1. 1.
    Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2008) Reasoning about agent deliberation. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2011) Reasoning about plan revision in BDI agent programs. Theoret Comput Sci 412(44):6115–6134MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alchourrón CE, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Log 50(02):510–530MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alechina N, Jago M, Logan B (2008) Preference-based belief revision for rule-based agents. Synthese 165(2):159–177MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolander T, Andersen MB (2011) Epistemic planning for single and multi-agent systems. J Appl Non Class Log 21(1):9–34MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bordini RH, Hübner JF (2010) Semantics for the Jason variant of AgentSpeak (plan failure and some internal actions). In: Proceedings of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), volume 215 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 635–640Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bordini RH, Hübner JF, Wooldridge MJ (2007) Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason, volume 8 of Wiley Series in Agent Technology. Wiley, OxfordCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bratman ME, Israel DJ, Pollack ME (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. J Comput Intell 4(3):349–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bacchus F, Kabanza F (1998) Planning for temporally extended goals. Ann Math Artif Intell 22(1–2):5–27MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bauters K, Liu W, Hong J, Sierra C, Godo L (2014) CAN(PLAN)+: extending the operational semantics of the BDI architecture to deal with uncertain information. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI), pp 52–61Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bolander T (2014) Seeing is believing: formalising false-belief tasks in dynamic epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the European conference on social intelligence (ECSI), volume 1283, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp 87–107Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bratman ME (1987) Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Reedited 1999 with CSLI Publications) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bratman ME (1992) Shared cooperative activity. Philos Rev 101(2):327–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bratman ME (2009) Intention, belief, and instrumental rationality. In: Sobel D, Wall S (eds) Reasons for action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baltag A, Smets S (2006) Conditional doxastic models: a qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electron Notes Theoret Comput Scie 165:5–21MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Carnielli W, Coniglio ME, Marcos J (2007) Logics of formal inconsistency. Handbook of philosophical logic. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Casali A, Godo L, Sierra C (2011) A graded BDI agent model to represent and reason about preferences. Artif Intell 175(7):1468–1478MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen PR, Levesque HJ (1990) Intention is choice with commitment. Artif Intell 42(2):213–261MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Castelfranchi C, Paglieri F (2007) The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese 155(2):237–263MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dastani M, de Boer F, Dignum F, Meyer JJC (2003) Programming agent deliberation: an approach illustrated using the 3APL language. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 97–104. ACMGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R (2010) Teamwork in multi-agent systems: a formal approach. Wiley, OxfordCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    d’Inverno M, Luck M, Georgeff MP, Kinny D, Wooldridge MJ (2004) The dMars architecture: a specification of the distributed multi-agent reasoning system. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 9(1–2):5–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Silva L, Padgham L (2005) A comparison of BDI based real-time reasoning and HTN based planning. AI 2004: advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 1167–1173Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Silva L, Sardina S, Padgham L (2009) First principles planning in BDI systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 1105–1112Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Erol K, Hendler JA, Nau DS (1994) HTN planning: complexity and expressivity. In: Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), volume 94, pp 1123–1128Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grosz B, Kraus S (1996) Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artif Intell 86(2):269–357MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Giunchiglia F, Serafini L (1994) Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: how we can do without modal logics. Artif Intell 65(1):29–70MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harman G (1976) Practical reasoning. Rev Metaphys 29(3):431–463Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hustadt U, Dixon C, Schmidt RA, Fisher M, Meyer JJC, van der Hoek W (2001) Reasoning about agents in the KARO framework. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning, (TIME)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Herzig A, Longin D (2004) C&L intention revisited. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). AAAI Press, pp 527–535Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hunsberger L, Ortiz CL (2008) Dynamic intention structures I: a theory of intention representation. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 16(3):298–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Herzig A, Perrussel L, Xiao Z (2016) On hierarchical task networks. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Herzig A, Perrussel L, Xiao Z, Zhang D (2016) Refinement of intentions. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hindriks KV, van der Hoek W, Meyer JJC (2012) GOAL agents instantiate intention logic. Logic programs, norms and action, volume 7360 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 196–219Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ingrand FF, Georgeff MP, Rao AS (1992) An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control. IEEE Expert 7(6):34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Icard T, Pacuit E, Shoham Y (2010) Joint revision of belief and intention. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR), pp 572–574Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kominis F, Geffner H (2015) Beliefs in multiagent planning: from one agent to many. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI Press, pp 147–155Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kambhampati S, Mali A, Srivastava B (1998) Hybrid planning for partially hierarchical domains. In: Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence and 10th innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (AAAIl/IAAI), pp 882–888Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lorini E, Herzig A (2008) A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese 163(1):45–77MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lakemeyer G, Lespérance Y (2012) Efficient reasoning in multiagent epistemic logics. In: Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), pp 498–503Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lorini E, Moisan F (2011) An epistemic logic of extensive games. Electron Notes Theoret Comput Sci 278:245–260MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Meyer JJC, de Boer FS, van Eijk RM, Hindriks KV, van der Hoek W (2001) On programming KARO agents. Log J IGPL 9(2):245–256CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McCarthy J, Hayes PJ (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine intelligence, 4th edn. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 463–502Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ma J, Liu W, Hong J, Godo L, Sierra C (2014) Plan selection for probabilistic BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI), pp 83–90Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Miller T, Muise CJ (2016) Belief update for proper epistemic knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 25th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 1209–1215Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Petrick RPA, Bacchus F (2004) Extending the knowledge-based approach to planning with incomplete information and sensing. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS), pp 2–11Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reiter R (2001) Knowledge in action: logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. The MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1991) Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 473–484Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sadek MD (1992) A study in the logic of intention. In: Proceeedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR), pp 462–473Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sardina S, de Silva L, Padgham L (2006) Hierarchical planning in BDI agent programming languages: a formal approach. In: Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 1001–1008Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Searle JR (1990) Collective intentions and actions. Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 401–415Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shoham Y (2009) Logical theories of intention and the database perspective. J Philos Log 38(6):633–647MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shoham Y (2016) Why knowledge representation matters. Commun ACM 59(1):47–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Singh MP (1992) A critical examination of use cohen-levesque theory of intentions. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), pp 364–368Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scherl R, Levesque HJ (1993) The frame problem and knowledge producing actions. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, pp 689–695Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sardina S, Lespérance Y (2010) Golog speaks the BDI language. In: Programming multi-agent systems—7th international workshop, ProMAS 2009. Revised selected papers, volume 5919 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 82–99Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shoham Y, Leyton-Brown K (2008) Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shapiro S, Sardina S, Thangarajah J, Cavedon L, Padgham L (2012) Revising conflicting intention sets in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, pp 1081–1088Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Strzalecki T (2014) Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs. J Econ Behav Org 108:108–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schut MC, Wooldridge MJ, Parsons S (2004) The theory and practice of intention reconsideration. J Exp Theoret Artif Intell 16(4):261–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tuomela R, Miller K (1988) We-intentions. J Philos Stud 53:367–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van Benthem J (2007) Dynamic logic for belief revision. J Appli Non Class Log 17(2):129–155MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    van Benthem J, Liu F (2007) Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. J Appl Non Class Log 17(2):157–182MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    van Ditmarsch HP, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (2007) Dynamic epistemic logic. kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Velleman JD (1989) Practical reflection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    van Zee M, Doder D (2016) AGM-style revision of beliefs and intentions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), volume 285 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 1511–1519Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    van Zee M, Dastani M, Doder D, van der Torre L (2015) Consistency conditions for beliefs and intentions. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning, pp 152–158Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    van Zee M, Doder D, Dastani M, van der Torre L (2015) AGM revision of beliefs about action and time. In: Proceedings of the 24th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 3250–3256Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Winikoff M, Padgham L, Harland J, Thangarajah J (2002) Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR), pp 470–481Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Waters M, Padgham L, Sardina S (2015) Improving domain-independent intention selection in BDI systems. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 29(4):683–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Weinstein J, Yildiz M (2007) Impact of higher-order uncertainty. Games Econ Behav 60(1):200–212MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Toulouse, IRITToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of CSWSUPenrithAustralia

Personalised recommendations