Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 83–115 | Cite as

Agent-Based Simulation of Animal Behaviour

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Article

Abstract

In the biological literature on animal behaviour, in addition to real experiments and field studies, also simulation experiments are a useful source of progress. Often specific mathematical modelling techniques are adopted and directly implemented in a programming language. Modelling more complex agent behaviours is less adequate using the usually adopted mathematical modelling techniques. The literature on AI and Agent Technology offers more specific methods to design and implement (also more complex) intelligent agents and agent societies on a conceptual level. One of these methods is the compositional multi-agent system design method DESIRE. In this paper it is shown how (depending on the complexity of the required behaviour) a simulation model for animal behaviour can be designed at a conceptual level in an agent-based manner. Different models are shown for different types of behaviour, varying from purely reactive behaviour to pro-active, social and adaptive behaviour. The compositional design method for multi-agent systems DESIRE and its software environment supports the conceptual and detailed design, and execution of these models. A number of experiments reported in the literature on animal behaviour have been simulated for different agent models.

computer simulation agent animal behaviour delayed response reactive pro-active social adaptive 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P.E. Agre and D. Chapman, “Pengi: An implementation of a theory of activity,” in Proc. Sixth National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 268-272, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Allen and M. Bekoff, Species of Mind: The Philosophy and Biology of Cognitive Ethology, MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Bonabeau, G. Theraulez, and J.-L. Deneubourg, “Mathematical models of self-organizing hierarchies in animal societies,” Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, vol. 58, pp. 661-717, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F.M.T. Brazier, F. Cornelissen, R. Gustavsson, C.M. Jonker, O. Lindeberg, B. Polak, and J. Treur, “Agents negotiating for load balancing of electricity use,” in Proc. 18th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS'98, edited by M.P. Papazoglou, M. Takizawa, B. Krämer, and S. Chanson, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 622-629, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F.M.T. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, N.R. Jennings, and J. Treur, “Formal specification of multi-agent systems: a real-world case,” in Proc. First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS-95, edited by V. Lesser, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 25-32, 1995. Extended version in International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, edited by M. Huhns, and M. Singh, special issue on Formal Methods in Cooperative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 6, pp. 67-94, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F.M.T. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, J. Treur, and L.C. Verbrugge, “Modelling internal dynamic behaviour of BDI agents,” in Formal Models of Agents (Selected papers from final ModelAge Workshop), edited by J.-J. Ch. Meyer and P.Y. Schobbes, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1760, Springer Verlag, pp. 36-56, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F.M.T. Brazier, P.A.T. van Eck, and J. Treur, “Modelling a society of simple agents: from conceptual specification to experimentation,” in Simulating Social Phenomena, Proc. International Conference on Computer Simulation and Social Sciences, ICCS & SS'97, edited by R. Conte, R. Hegselmann, and P. Terna, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 456, Springer Verlag, pp. 103-107, 1997. Extended version in Journal of Applied Intelligence, 2000, vol. 14, pp. 161-178, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F.M.T. Brazier, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Compositional design and Reuse of a Generic Agent Model,” Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal, vol. 14, pp. 491-538, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F.M.T. Brazier, C.M. Jonker, J. Treur, and N.J.E. Wijngaards, “On the use of shared task models in knowledge acquisition, strategic user interaction and clarification agents,” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 52, pp. 77-110, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F.M.T. Brazier, C.M. Jonker, F.J.Jüngen, and J. Treur, “Distributed scheduling to support a call centre: a co-operative multi-agent approach,” in Proc. Third International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, PAAM-98, The Practical Application Company Ltd, pp. 555-576, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F.M.T. Brazier, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Formalisation of a cooperation model based on joint intentions,” in Intelligent Agents III (Proc. Third International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ATAL'96), edited by J.P.Müller, M.J. Wooldridge, and N.R. Jennings, Lecture Notes in AI, volume 1193, Springer Verlag, pp. 141-155, 1997. Extended version: F.M.T. Brazier, F. Cornelissen, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Compositional specification of a reusable co-operative agent model,” International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 9, pp. 171-207, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R.A. Brooks, “A robust layered control system for a mobile robot,” in IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. RA-2, no. 1, pp. 14-23, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Castelfranchi, F. Dignum, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture,” in Intelligent Agents VI. Proc. Sixth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ATAL'99, edited by N.R. Jennings andY. Lesperance, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1757, Springer Verlag, pp. 364-378, 2000.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Cesta, M. Micelli, and P. Rizzo, “Effects of different interaction attitudes on a multi-agent system performance,” in Agents Breaking Away. Proc. 7th Eur. Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, MAAMAW'96, edited byW. van de Velde and J.W. Perram, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, vol. 1038, pp. 128-138, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Cornelissen, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Compositional verification of knowledge-based systems: A case study in diagnostic reasoning,” in Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management, Proc. 10th EKAW'97, edited by E. Plaza, and R. Benjamins, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1319, Springer Verlag, pp. 65-80, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.C. Dennett, The Intentional Stance, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L.A. Dugatkin, and H.K. Reeve (eds.), Game Theory and Animal Behaviour, Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    E.W. Dijkstra, A Discipline of Programming, Prentice Hall, 1976.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Engelfriet and J. Treur, “Acompositional reasoning system for executing nonmonotonic theories of reasoning,” in Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning, Proc. ECSQARU/FAPR-97, edited by D.M. Gabbay, R. Kruse, A. Nonnengart, and H.J. Ohlbach, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1244, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 252-266, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Fisher and M.Wooldridge, “On the formal specification and verification of multi-agent systems,” in International Journal of Co-operative Information Systems, IJCIS, edited by M. Huhns and M. Singh, vol. 6, no. 1, special issue on Formal Methods in Co-operative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 37-65, 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M.P. Georgeff and A.L. Lansky, “Reactive reasoning and planning,” in Proc. of the National Conference of the American Association for AI, AAAI'87. Morgan Kaufman, 1987.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J.J., Gibson, “The concept of the stimulus in psychology,” American Psychology, vol. 15, pp. 694-703, 1960.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    C.K., Hemelrijk, “Towards the integration of social dominance and spatial structure,” Animal Behaviour Journal, vol. 59, pp. 1035-1048, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    W. van der Hoek, J.-J.Ch.Meyer, and J.Treur, “Formal semantics of temporal epistemic reflection,” in Logic Program Synthesis and Transformation-Meta-Programming in Logic, Proc. Fourth Int.Workshop on Meta-programming in Logic, META'94, edited by L. Fribourg and F.Turini, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 883, Springer Verlag, pp. 332-352, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W.S. Hunter, “The delayed reaction in animals,” Behavioral Monographs, vol. 2, pp. 1-85, 1912.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C.M. Jonker and J. Treur, “Compositional verification of multiagent systems: a formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness,” in Proc. InternationalWorkshop on Compositionality, COMPOS'97, edited byW.P. de Roever, A. Pnueli, et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, 1998. Extended version in International Journal of Co-operative Information Systems, 2001, in press.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C.M. Jonker and J. Treur, “A generic architecture for broker agents,” in Proc. Third International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, PAAM-98, The Practical Application Company Ltd, 1998, pp. 623-624. Extended version in Proc. 15th IFIPWorld Computer Congress, WCC'98, Conference on Information Technology and Knowledge Systems, IT & KNOWS'98, edited by J. Cuena, pp. 319-332, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    L.P. Kaelbling, “An archictecture for intelligent reactive systems,” in Readings in Planning, edited by J. Allen, J. Hendler, and A. Tate, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 713-728, 1990.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Maes, (ed.), Designing Autonomous Agents: Theory and Practice from Biology to Engineering and Back, MIT/Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    S. Matsumura and T. Kobashi, “A game model for dominance relations among group-living animals,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 42, pp. 77-84, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    C.L. Morgan, An Introduction to Comparative Psychology, Scott, London, 1894.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Mulder, J.Treur, and M. Fisher, “Agent modelling in metateM and DESIRE,” in Intelligent Agents IV, Proc. Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ATAL'97, edited by M.P. Singh, A.S. Rao, and M.J. Wooldridge, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1365, Springer Verlag, pp. 193-207, 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J.P. Müller, “The design of intelligent agents: a layered approach,” Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1177, 1996.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    I.P. Pavlov, Conditioned Reflexes, Oxford, London, 1927.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    A.S. Rao, and M.P. Georgeff, “Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture,” in Proc. Second Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, edited by R. Fikes and E. Sandewall, Morgan Kaufman, pp. 473-484, 1991.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S.E. Riechert, “Game theory and animal contests,” in Game Theory and Animal Behaviour, edited by L.A. Dugatkin and H.K. Reeve, Oxford University Press, pp. 64-93, 1998.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    B.F. Skinner, “The generic nature of the concepts of stimulus and response,” Journal of Gen. Psychology, vol. 12, pp. 40-65, 1935.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Y.H. Tan and J. Treur, “Constructive default logic and the control of defeasible reasoning,” in Proc. 10th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'92, edited by B. Neumann, Wiley and Sons, pp. 299-303, 1992.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    O.L. Tinklepaugh, “Multiple delayed reaction with chimpanzees and monkeys,” Journal of Comparative Psychology, vol. 13, pp. 207-243, 1932.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    J. Vauclair, Animal Cognition, Harvard Univerity Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    J.P.,Watson, Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviourist, Lippincott Philadelphia, 1919.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    M.J. Wooldridge and N.R. Jennings, “Intelligent agents: theory and practice,” in Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115-152, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations