Agents via Mixed-Mode Computation in Linear Logic

  • James Harland
  • Michael Winikoff


Agent systems based on the Belief, Desire and Intention model of Rao and Georgeff have been used for a number of successful applications. However, it is often difficult to learn how to apply such systems, due to the complexity of both the semantics of the system and the computational model. In addition, there is a gap between the semantics and the concepts that are presented to the programmer. In this paper we address these issues by re-casting the foundations of such systems into a logic programming framework. In particular we show how the integration of backward- and forward-chaining techniques for linear logic provides a natural starting point for this investigation. We discuss how the integrated system provides for the interaction between the proactive and reactive parts of the system, and we discuss several aspects of this interaction. In particular, one perhaps surprising outcome is that goals and plans may be thought of as declarative and procedural aspects of the same concept. We also discuss the language design issues for such a system, and particularly the way in which the potential choices for rule evaluation in a forward-chaining manner is crucial to the behaviour of the system.

linear logic mixed-mode computation intelligent agents Belief Desire Intention (BDI) 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    V. Alexiev, Applications of linear logic to computation: An overview, Bulletin of the IGPL 2(1) (1994) 77–107.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    A.-A. Amin, Agent-oriented programming in linear logic, Honours Thesis, Department of Computer Science, RMIT (November 1999).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.-M. Andreoli, Logic programming with focusing proofs in linear logic, Journal of Logic and Computation 2(3) (1992).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.-M. Andreoli, Focussing and proof construction, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 107(1) (2001) 131–153.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.-M. Andreoli and R. Pareschi, Linear objects: Logical processes with built-in inheritance, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming, Jerusalem (June 1990) pp. 496–510.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. Avron, The method of hypersequents in the proof theory of propositional non-classical logics, in: Logic: Foundations to Applications, eds. W. Hodges, M. Hyland, C. Steinhorn and J. Truss (Oxford Science Publications, 1996) pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.E. Bratman, Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    The dMARS V1.6.11 system overview, Technical Report, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute (AAII) (1996).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M.H. van Emden and R.A. Kowalski, The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 23(4) (October 1976) 733–742.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R.E. Fikes and N.J. Nilsson, STRIPS: A new approach to theorem proving in problem solving, Arti-ficial Intelligence 2 (1971) 189–208.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    S. Franklin and A. Graesser, Is it an agent or just a program?: A taxonomy for intelligent agents, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (Springer, 1996).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    D. Gabbay, Dynamics of practical reasoning: A position paper, in: Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 2, eds. K. Segerberg, M. Zakharyaschev, M. de Rijke and H. Wansing (CSLI Publications, 2000) pp. 197–242.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Georgeff and A. Rao, Rational software agents: From theory to practice, in: Agent Technology: Foundations, Applications, and Markets, eds. N. Jennings and M. Wooldridge (Springer, 1998) pp. 139–160.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    J.-Y. Girard, Linear logic, Theoretical Computer Science 50</del> (1987) 1–102.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    J.-Y. Girard, Y. L and L. Regnier, Advances in Linear Logic, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Vol. 222 (Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Harland, D. Pym and M.Winikoff, Programming in lygon: An overview, in: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, Munich (July 1996) pp. 391–405.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Harland, D. Pym and M. Winikoff, Forward and backward chaining in linear logic, in: Proceedings of the CADE-17 Workshop on Proof-Search in Type-Theoretic Systems, Pittsburgh (June 2000).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    J. Harland and M. Winikoff, Agents via mixed-mode computation in linear logic: A proposal, in: Proceedings of the ICLP'01 Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA-01), Paphos (December 2001).Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Hodas and D. Miller, Logic programming in a fragment of intuitionistic linear logic, Information and Computation 110(2) (1994) 327–365.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. Hodas, K. Watkins, N. Tamura and K.-S. Kang, Efficient implementation of a linear logic programming language, in: Proceedings of the Joint International Conference and Symposium on Logic Programming, Manchester (June 1998) pp. 145–159.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M. Huber, JAM: A BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents'99), Seattle (May 1999) pp. 236–243.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    JACK Intelligent Agents User Guide, Agent Oriented Software (AOS), Carlton (2000).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    N. Jennings, An agent-based approach for building complex software systems, Communications of the ACM 44(4) (2001) 35–41.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    N. Jennings and M. Wooldridge, Applications of intelligent agents, in: Agent Technology: Foundations, Applications, and Markets, eds. N. Jennings and M. Wooldridge (Springer, 1998) pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    A. Kakas, R. Kowalski and F. Toni, Abductive logic programming, Journal of Logic and Computation 2 (1992) 719–770.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    R. Kowalski, Predicate logic as a programming language, in: Information Processing 74 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    R. Kowalski and F. Sadri, From logic programming towards multi-agent systems, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (1999).Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    P.D. Lincoln, Computational aspects of linear logic, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (August 1992).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M. Masseron, Generating plans in linear logic II: A geometry of conjunctive actions, Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 371–375.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    M. Masseron, C. Tollu and J. Vauzeilles, Generating plans in linear logic I: Actions as proofs, Theoretical Computer Science 113 (1993) 349–371.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    D.A. Miller, A multiple-conclusioned meta-logic, in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Paris (June 1994) pp. 272–281.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    D.A. Miller, G. Nadathur, F. Pfenning and A. Scedrov, Uniform proofs as a foundation for logic programming, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 51 (1991) 125–157.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    L. Padgham and P. Lambrix, Agent capabilities: Extending BDI theory, in: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence-AAAI 2000 (August 2000) pp. 68–73.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    G. Plotkin, Structural operational semantics (lecture notes), Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University (1981) (reprinted 1991).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    J. Polakow, Linear logic programming with an ordered context, in: 2nd International Conference on Principles and Practice of Declarative Programming (PPDP 2000), Montreal (September 2000).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    J. Polakow, Ordered linear logic and applications, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (August 2001). Available as Technical Report CMU-CS-01-152 and from Scholar
  37. [37]
    D. Pym, On bunched predicate logic, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, Trento (July 1999).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    D. Pym and J. Harland, A uniform proof-theoretic investigation of linear logic programming, Journal of Logic and Computation 4(2) (April 1994).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    A. Rao and M. Georgeff, Modelling rational agents within a BDI-architecture, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Cambridge, MA, eds. J. Allen, R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (1991) pp. 473–484.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    A. Rao and M. Georgeff, An abstract architecture for rational agents, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Boston, eds. C. Rich, W. Swartout and B. Nebel (1992) pp. 439–449.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    A. Rao and M. Georgeff, Decision procedures for BDI logics, Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3) (1998) 292–342.Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    A. Scedrov, A brief guide to linear logic, in: Current Trends in Theoretical Computer Science, eds. G. Rozenberg and A. Salolmaa (World Scientific, 1993).Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    L.A. Stein, Challenging the computational metaphor: Implications for how we think, Cybernetics and Systems 30(6) (September 1999). Available from Scholar
  44. [44]
    J. Vaghani, K. Ramamohanarao, D. Kemp, Z. Somogyi, P. Stuckey, T. Leask and J. Harland, The aditi deductive database system, VLDB Journal 3(2) (April 1994) 245–288.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    M. Winikoff and J. Harland, Some applications of the linear logic programming language Lygon, in: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Conference, Melbourne (February, 1996) pp. 262–271.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    M. Winikoff, L. Padgham and J. Harland, Simplifying the development of intelligent agents, in: AI2001: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. 14th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, eds. M. Stumptner, D. Corbett and M. Brooks, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2256 (Springer, 2001) pp. 555–568.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    M. Winikoff, L. Padgham, J. Harland and J. Thangarajah, Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002), Toulouse, France (April 2002).Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    M. Wooldridge, Reasoning about Rational Agents (MIT Press, 2000).Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    M.Wooldridge and N. Jennings, Agent theories, architectures and languages: A survey, in: Intelligent Agents, eds. M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings (Springer, Berlin, 1995) pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Harland
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations