Optimistic and Disjunctive Agent Design Problems

  • Michael Wooldridge
  • Paul E. Dunne
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1986)


Theagent designproblemis as follows:Givenanenvironment, together with a specification of a task, is it possible to construct an agent that can be guaranteed to successfully accomplish the task in the environment? In previous research, it was shown that for two important classes of tasks (where an agent was required to either achieve some state of affairs or maintain some state of affairs), the agent design problemwas pspace-complete. In this paper, we consider several important generalisations of such tasks. In an optimistic agent design problem, we simply ask whether an agent has at least some chance of bringing about a goal state. In a combined design problem, an agent is required to achieve some state of affairs while ensuring that some invariant condition is maintained. Finally, in a disjunctive design problem, we are presented with a number of goals and corresponding invariants—the aim is to design an agent that on any given run, will achieve one of the goals while maintaining the corresponding invariant. We prove that while the optimistic achievement and maintenance design problems are np-complete, the pspace-completeness results obtained for achievement and maintenance tasks generalise to combined and disjunctive agent design.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. F. Allen, J. Hendler, and A. Tate, editors. Readings in Planning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Binmore. Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory. D. C. Heath and Company: Lexington, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T. Bylander. The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS planning. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2):165–204, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. M. Clarke and E. A. Emerson. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In D. Kozen, editor, Logics of Programs—Proceedings 1981 (LNCSVolume 131), pages 52–71. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning About Knowledge. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of np-Completeness. W. H. Freeman: NewYork, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. R. Cassandra. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101:99–134, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. L. Littman, J. Goldsmith, and M. Mundhenk. The computational complexity of probabilistic planning. Journal of AI Research, 9:1–36, 1998.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. TemporalVerification of Reactive Systems—Safety. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Z. Manna and P. Wolper. Synthesis of communicating processes from temporal logic speci-fications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 6(1):68–93, January 1984.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. H. Papadimitriou. Computational Complexity. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Pnueli and R. Rosner. On the synthesis of a reactive module. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Symposium on the Principles of Programming Languages (POPL), pages 179–190, January 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Russell and D. Subramanian. Provably bounded-optimal agents. Journal of AI Research, 2:575–609, 1995.MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Tennenholtz and Y. Moses. On cooperation in a multi-entity model: Preliminary report. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), Detroit, MI, 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Wooldridge. The computational complexity of agent design problems. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-2000), pages 341–348, Boston, MA, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Wooldridge
    • 1
  • Paul E. Dunne
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations