Skip to main content

Dynamic intention structures I: a theory of intention representation


This article introduces a new theory of intention representation which is based on a structure called a Dynamic Intention Structure (DIS). The theory of DISs was motivated by the problem of how to properly represent incompletely specified intentions and their evolution. Since the plans and intentions of collaborating agents are most often elaborated incrementally and jointly, elaboration processes naturally involve agreements among agents on the identity of appropriate agents, objects and properties that figure into their joint plans. The paper builds on ideas from dynamic logic to present a solution to the representation and evolution of agent intentions involving reference to incompletely specified and, possibly, mutually dependent intentions, as well as the objects referenced within those intentions. It provides a first order semantics for the resulting logic. A companion paper extends further the logical form of DISs and explores the problem of logical consequence and intention revision.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Babaian, T., Grosz, B. J., & Shieber, S. (2002). A writer’s collaborative assistant. In Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent user interfaces, IUI’02. ACM Press.

  2. Bratman M.E. (1999). Faces of intention: Selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chellas B.F. (1980). Modal logic: An introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen P.R., Levesque H.J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen P.R., Levesque H.J. (1991). Teamwork. Nous 25, 487–512

    Google Scholar 

  6. de Boer F.S., de Vries W., Meyer J.-J.Ch., van Eijk R.M., van der Hoek W. (2005). Process algebra and constraint programming for modeling interactions in MAS. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing 16(2–3): 113–150

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Dignum F., Meyer J.-J.Ch., Wieringa R.J., Kuiper R. (1996). A modal approach to intentions, commitments and obligations: Intention plus commitment yields obligation. In: Brown M.A., Carmo J. (eds). Deontic logic, agency and normative systems (pp. 80–97). Springer-Verlag.

  8. Fitting M., Mendelsohn R.L. (1998). First-order modal logic, Vol. 277 of Synthese Library: Studies in epistemology, logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Dordrecht, Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gärdenfors P. (ed). (1992). Belief revision. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilbert M. (2000). Sociality and responsibility. New York, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ginsberg M.L. (1986). Counterfactuals. Artificial Intelligence 30, 35–79

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Grosz B.J., Hunsberger L. (2006). The dynamics of intention in collaborative activity. Cognitive Systems Research 7(2–3): 259–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grosz B.J., Kraus S. (1996). Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence 86, 269–357

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Grosz B.J., Kraus S. (1999). The evolution of Shared Plans. In: Wooldridge M., Rao A. (eds). Foundations of rational agency, Number 14 in Applied Logic Series. Dordrecht, Kluwer, pp. 227–262

    Google Scholar 

  16. Grosz B.J., Sidner C.L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12, 175–204

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grosz B.J., Sidner C.L. (1990). Plans for discourse. In: Cohen P.R., Morgan J., Pollack M.E. (eds). Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  18. Heim I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In: Baurle R., Schwarze C., von Stechow A. (eds). Meaning, use and the interpretation of language. Berlin, de Gruyter, pp. 164–189

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kamp, H. (1990). In Prolegomena to a structural account of belief and other attitudes (Ch. 2, pp. 27–90). Number 20 in CSLI Lecture Notes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  20. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic, Vol. 42 of Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  21. Kinny, D., Ljungberg, M., Rao, A. S., Sonenberg, E., Tidhar, G., & Werner, E. (1994). Planned team activity. In C. Castelfranchi & E. Werner (Eds.), Artificial social systems, Vol. 830 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Amsterdam: Springer Verlag.

  22. Konolige, K., & Pollack, M. E. (1993). A representationalist theory of intentions. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93) (pp. 390–395). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

  23. Lochbaum K.E. (1998). A collaborative planning model of discourse structure. Computational Linguistics 24(4): 525–572

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moore, R. C. (1985). A formal theory of knowledge and action. In Formal Theories of the Commonsense World. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

  25. Nebel, B. (1992). In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Syntax based approaches to belief revision (pp. 52–88).

  26. Ortiz C.L. (1999). Explanatory update theory: Applications of counterfactual reasoning to causation. Artificial Intelligence 108, 125–178

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Ortiz, C. L., & Hunsberger, L. Dynamic intention structures II: A theory of intention revision. In preparation.

  28. Ortiz, C. L., Jr. (1999). Introspective and elaborative processes in rational agents. Journal of the Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

  29. Ortiz, C. L., Jr., & Grosz, B. J. (2000). Interpreting information requests in context: A collaborative web interface for distance learning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems.

  30. Rao A.S., Georgeff M.P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Allen J.F., Fikes R., Sandewall E., (eds). Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-91). Los Altos, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 473–484

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rich C., Sidner C.L., Lesh N. (2001). COLLAGEN: Applying collaborative discourse theory to human-computer interaction. AI Magazine 22(4): 15–26

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sadek, M. D. (1992). A study in the logic of intentions. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’92). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Inc.

  33. Singh M.P. (1994). Multiagent systems: A theoretical framework for intentions, know-how, and communications. Berlin, Springer-Verlag

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Steele G.L. (1990). Common Lisp the Language. Belford, Digital Press

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Tuomela R. (1995). The importance of Us: A philosophical study of basic social notions. Stanford, Stanford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  36. van der Hoek W., Jamroga W., Wooldridge M. (2007). Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2): 265–290

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. van Eijck J. (2005). Discourse representation theory. In: Brown K. (ed). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke Hunsberger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hunsberger, L., Ortiz, C.L. Dynamic intention structures I: a theory of intention representation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 16, 298–326 (2008).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: