The dMARS Architecture: A Specification of the Distributed Multi-Agent Reasoning System

  • Mark D'Inverno
  • Michael Luck
  • Michael Georgeff
  • David Kinny
  • Michael Wooldridge
Article

Abstract

The Procedural Reasoning System (PRS) is the best established agent architecture currently available. It has been deployed in many major industrial applications, ranging from fault diagnosis on the space shuttle to air traffic management and business process control. The theory of PRS-like systems has also been widely studied: within the intelligent agents research community, the belief-desire-intention (BDI) model of practical reasoning that underpins PRS is arguably the dominant force in the theoretical foundations of rational agency. Despite the interest in PRS and BDI agents, no complete attempt has yet been made to precisely specify the behaviour of real PRS systems. This has led to the development of a range of systems that claim to conform to the PRS model, but which differ from it in many important respects. Our aim in this paper is to rectify this omission. We provide an abstract formal model of an idealised dMARS system (the most recent implementation of the PRS architecture), which precisely defines the key data structures present within the architecture and the operations that manipulate these structures. We focus in particular on dMARS plans, since these are the key tool for programming dMARS agents. The specification we present will enable other implementations of PRS to be easily developed, and will serve as a benchmark against which future architectural enhancements can be evaluated.

agent architectures procedural reasoning system BDI formal specification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Ashri and M. Luck, “Paradigma: Agent implementation through Jini” in A. M. Tjoa, R. R. Wagner, and A. Al-Zobaidie, (eds.), Eleventh International Workshop on Databases and Expert System Application, IEEE Computer Society, 2000, pp. 453–457.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. P. Bowen, Formal Specification and Documentation using Z: A Case Study Approach, International Thomson Computer Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. E. Bratman, D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack, “Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning” Computational Intelligence, vol. 4, pp. 349–355, 1988.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Burmeister and K. Sundermeyer, “Cooperative problem solving guided by intentions and perception” in E. Werner and Y. Demazeau, (eds.), Decentralized AI 3-Proc. Third European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW-91), Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 77–92, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Busetta, R. Ronnquist, A. Hodgson, and A. Lucas, “JACK intelligent agents-components for intelligent agents in Java” Agent Link News, 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. Chellas, Modal Logic: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1980.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, “Intention is choice with commitment” Artif. Intell., vol. 42, pp. 213–261, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. P. Collins, J. E. Nicholls, and I. H. Sørensen, “Introducing formal methods: The CICS experience with Z” in B. Neumann, et al., (eds.), Mathematical Structures for Software Engineering, Oxford University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. D. Craig, The Formal Specification of Advanced AI Architectures, Ellis Horwood: Chichester, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Craigen, S. L. Gerhart, and T. J. Ralston, “An international survey of industrial applications of formal methods” Technical Report NIST GCR 93/626-V1 & 2, Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, US National Institute of Standards and Technology and US Naval Research Laboratories, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. d'Inverno, M. Fisher, A. Lomuscio, M. Luck, M. de Rijke, M. Ryan, and M. Wooldridge, “Formalisms for multi-agent systems” Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 315–321, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. d'Inverno, K. Hindriks, and M. Luck, A formal architecture for the 3APL agent programming language, in First International Conference of B and Z Users, Springer Verlag 1878, 2000, pp. 168–187.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. d'Inverno and M. Luck, “Engineering AgentSpeak(L): A formal computational model” Logic Comput., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 233–260, 1998.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. d'Inverno and M. Luck, Understanding Agent Systems, Springer, 2001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. d'Inverno and M. Luck, Practical and theoretical innovations in multi-agent systems research, Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 295–301, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. d'Inverno, M. Priestley, and M. Luck, A formal framework for hypertext systems, IEE Proc.-Software Eng. J., vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 175–184, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. A. Emerson and J. Y. Halpern, “Sometimes and 'not never' revisited: On branching time versus linear time temporal logic” J. ACM, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 151–178, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. P. Georgeff, “Planning” Ann. Rev. Comput. Sci., vol. 2, pp. 359–400, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. P. Georgeff and A. L. Lansky, “Reactive reasoning and planning” in Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), Seattle, WA, 1987, pp. 677–682.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Georgeff, B. Pell, M. Pollack, M. Tambe, and M. Wooldridge, “The belief-desire-intention model of agency” in Intelligent Agents V, LNAI 1555, Springer, 1999, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. P. Georgeff and A. S. Rao, 'A profile of the Australian AI Institute” IEEE Expert, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 89–92, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Goodwin, “A formal specification of agent properties” J. Logic Comput., vol. 5, no. 6, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Haddadi, “Belief-desire-intention agent architectures” in G. M. P. O'Hare and N. R. Jennings, (eds.), Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Wiley, 1996, pp. 169–185.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. J. Hayes, “VDM and Z: A comparative case study” Form. Aspect Comput., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 76–99, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    I. J. Hayes, (ed.), Specification Case Studies, (2nd edn.). Prentice Hall: Hemel Hempstead, 1993.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. A. Hewitt, C. M. O'Halloran, and C. T. Sennet, “Experiences with PiZA, an animator for Z” in J. P. Bowen, M. G. Hinchey, and D. Till, (eds.), in ZUM'97: 10th International Conference of Z Users, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1997, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. V. Hindriks, F. S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer, “Formal Semantics for an Abstract Agent Programming Language” in Intelligent Agents IV: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories. Architectures and Languages, LNAI 1365, Springer, 1998, pp. 215–229.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. V. Hindriks, F. S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer, “Control structures of rulebased agent languages” in Intelligent Agents V. LNAI 1555, Springer, 1999, pp. 381–396.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. Hindriks, M. d'Inverno, and M. Luck, “Architecture for agent programming languages” in Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2000, pp. 363–367.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    C. A. R. Hoare, “Communicating sequential processes” Commun. ACM, vol. 21, pp. 666–677, 1978.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. J. Huber, “JAM: A BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture” in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents'99), Seattle, WA, 1999, pp. 236–243.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    F. Ingrand, M. Georgeff, and A. Rao, “An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control” IEEE Expert, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 34–44, 1992.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    N. R. Jennings, “Specification and implementation of a belief desire joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving” J. Intell. Coop. Inform. Sys., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 289–318, 1993.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    C. B. Jones, Systematic Software Development using VDM, (2nd edn.). Prentice Hall, 1990.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    K. Lano, “The B Language and Method: A Guide to Practical Formal Development” Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J. Lee, M. Huber, E. Durfee, and P. Kenny, “UM-PRS: An implementation of the procedural reasoning system for multirobot applications” in CIRFSS94, Conference on Intelligent Robotics in Field, Factory, Service and Space, MIT Press, 1994, pp. 842–849.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Luck and M. d'Inverno, From agent theory to agent construction: A case study, in Intelligent Agents III. ATAL'96, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 215–230.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Luck and M. d'Inverno, “Unifying agent systems“, Ann. Math. Artif. Intell., vol. 37, no. 1-2, pp. 131–167, 2002.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    R. Milner, Communication and Concurrency, Prentice Hall, 1989.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    B. G. Milnes, “A specification of the Soar architecture in Z” Technical Report CMU-CS-92-169, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, 1992.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    B. Drabble, (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems (AIPS-96), AAAI Press, 1996, pp. 158–165.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    A. S. Rao, “AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language.“ in W. Van de Velde and 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), Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1996, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    A. S. Rao and M. Georgeff, “BDI Agents: From theory to practice” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), San Francisco, CA, June 1995, pp. 312–319.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, “Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture,” in R. Fikes and E. Sandewall, (eds.), Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R-91), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, April 1991, pp. 473–484.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff, “An abstract architecture for rational agents” in C. Rich, W. Swartout, and B. Nebel, (eds.), Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R-92), 1992, pp. 439–449.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    M. Saaltink, “The Z/EVES system.“ in J. P. Bowen, M. G. Hinchey, and D. Till, (eds.), ZUM'97: 10th International Conference of Z Users. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1997, pp. 72–85.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    J. M. Spivey, Understanding Z: A Specification Language and its Formal Semantics, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    J. M. Spivey, The F uzz Manual, (2nd edn.). Computing Science Consultancy, 2 Willow Close, Garsington, Oxford OX9 9AN, UK, 1992.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    M. Spivey, The Z Notation, (2nd edn.). Prentice Hall International: Hemel Hempstead, England, 1992.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    M. Weber, “Combining Statecharts and Z for the design of safety-critical control systems” in M.-C. Gaudel and J. C. P. Woodcock, (eds.), FME'96: Industrial Benefit and Advances in Formal Methods, vol. 1051 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Formal Methods Europe, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 307–326.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    C. D. Wezeman, “Using Z for network modelling: An industrial experience report” Comput. Stand. Inter., vol. 17, no. 5-6, pp. 631–638, 1995.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    K. R. Wood, “A practical approach to software engineering using Z and the refinement calculus” ACM Software Eng. Notes, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 79–88, 1995.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    J. Woodcock and J. Davies, Using Z: Specificiation. Refinement and Proof, Prentice Hall: Hemel Hempstead, 1996.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Michael Woodlridge, Reasoning about Rational Agents, MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    M. Wooldridge, “This isMY World: the logic of an agent-oriented testbed for DAI” in M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, (eds.), Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures and Languages (LNAI Volume 890), Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995, pp. 160–178.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, “Intelligent agents: Theory and practice” Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115–152, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark D'Inverno
    • 1
  • Michael Luck
    • 2
  • Michael Georgeff
    • 3
  • David Kinny
    • 4
  • Michael Wooldridge
    • 5
  1. 1.Cavendish School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK
  2. 2.School of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Faculty of Information Technology Monash UniversityVictoriaAustralia
  4. 4.Agentis SoftwareCarltonAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations