Reliable Agent Computation: An Algebraic Approach

  • David Kinny
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2132)


Agent programming languages based on a sense-compute-act cycle and stored plan execution, such as PRS and dMARS, lack any formal semantics; this and the actual computational models which they employ can make it difficult or impossible to reason about agent behaviour. In this paper we present the Ψ calculus, a novel algebraic language which generalizes and extends these languages and remedies several of their shortcomings. Ψ has a complete operational semantics covering all aspects of agent computation from intention step execution to the top-level control cycle, specified uniformly in process algebraic style, and has certain desirable safety, guarantee and compositionality properties which facilitate reasoning about agent program behaviour.


Basic Transition Operational Semantic Belief State Reduction Rule Plan Execution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Michael E. Bratman. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Dershowitz and J.-P. Jouannaud. Rewrite systems. In J. van Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science Vol. B, pages 243–320. MIT Press/Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. d’Inverno, D. Kinny, M. Luck, and M. Wooldridge. A formal specification of dMARS. In Intelligent Agents IV: Proceedings of ATAL-97, Providence, RI, 1997. Springer LNAI 1365.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michael P. Georgeff and Felix Ingrand. Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In Proceedings of IJCAI-89, pages 972–978, Detroit, MI, 1989.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. De Giacomo, Y. Lesperance, and H. J. Levesque. ConGolog, a concurrent programming language based on the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 121:109–169, 2000.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Harel and C. Kahana. On statecharts with overlapping. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1(4), 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koen V. Hindriks, Frank S. de Boer, Wiebe van der Hoek, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. Control structures of rule-based agent languages. In Intelligent Agents V: Proceedings of ATAL-98, pages 381–396, Paris, 1998. Springer LNAI 1555.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    David Kinny. The Distributed Multi-Agent Reasoning System Architecture and Language Specification. Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne, Australia, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    David Kinny. Fundamentals of Agent Computation Theory: Semantics. PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jaeho Lee and Edmund H. Durfee. On explicit plan languages for coordinating multiagent plan execution. In Intelligent Agents IV: Proceedings of ATAL-97, pages 113–126, Providence, RI, 1997. Springer LNAI 1365.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zohar Manna and Amir Pnueli. The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems. Springer Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jose Meseguer. Conditional rewriting logic as a unified model of concurrency. Theoretical Computer Science, 96(1):73–155, 1992.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robin Milner. The polyadic π-calculus: A tutorial. Technical Report LFCS report 91-180, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. V. S. Prasad. A calculus of broadcasting systems. Science of Computer Programming, 25, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Anand Rao. AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In Agents Breaking Away: Proceedings of MAAMAW’ 96, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 1996. Springer LNAI 1038.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Anand S. Rao and Michael P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR’ 91, pages 473–484, Cambridge, MA, 1991.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerd Wagner. A logical and operational model of scalable knowledge-and perception-based agents. In Agents Breaking Away: Proceedings of MAAMAW’ 96, pages 26–41, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 1996. Springer LNAI 1038.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jennifer Widom and Stefano Ceri. Active Database Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kinny
    • 1
  1. 1.Intelligent Agent Laboratory, Department of Information SystemsUniversity of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations