Modal Structure for Agents Interaction Based on Concurrent Actions
The central issue here is that individual agent actions interact. So, an action representation has to make these interactions explicit. The formalization of concurrent, parallel, and sequential actions as well as synchronous and asynchronous ones is introduced comparing it with existing proposals. Temporal modal logic formalism sets these different types of actions as particular cases of concurrent actions. This way the description and programming of diverse processes in distributed multi-agent systems can be made in an integrated fashion. The proposed model is illustrated through a multi-agent system for flexible manufacturing. TU Prolog is used to implement the developed formal model.
KeywordsTemporal Logic Multiagent System Interaction Structure Autonomous Agent Action Execution
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Joseph Y. Halpern, Yoav Shoham. A Propositional Modal Logic of Time Intervals. Proceedings 1st Annual IEEE Symp. on Logic in Computer Science. Pp. 279–292, 1986.Google Scholar
- V. Lifschitz. Toward a metatheory of action. Proc. of the 2nd Intl. Conf. On Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (Eds. J. Allen, R. Fikes, E. Sandewall), 1991, p.376–387.Google Scholar
- M. Soutchanski and E. Ternovskaia, Logical Formalization of Concurrent Actions for Multi-Agent Systems, In Proc. of ECAI’94 Workshop “Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures, and Languages”, LNAI, vol. 890, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
- Engelfriet J., Treur, J. and Jonker, C. Verification of Multi-Agent System in Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic, In Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, Vol 7: Agents-Based Defeasible Control in Dynamic Environments, Meyer, J. J and Treur, J (Eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, September 2002.Google Scholar
- Van der Hoek, W. and Wooldridge, M., Tractable Multiagent Planning for Epistemic Goals, In Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2002, ACM Press, Part 3, pp 1167–1174.Google Scholar
- Pynadath, D. and Tambe, M. An automated teamwork infrastructure for heterogeneous software agents and humans, Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2002.Google Scholar
- Matias Alvarado, Leonid Cheremetov, E. German, and E. Alva, Logic of Interaction for Multiagent System, C. Coello et. Al., (Eds.) MICAI 2002: Advances in Artificial Intelligence, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, 2313: 387–400, 2002.Google Scholar
- M. Tambe. Towards Flexible Teamwork. Journal of AI Research, 7(1997), 83–124.Google Scholar
- Craig Boutilier and Ronen I. Brafman Planning with Concurrent Interacting Actions. In Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97) (1997).Google Scholar
- Kumar, Sanjeev, Huber, Marcus J., Mcgee, David R.M., Cohen, Philip R., Levesque, Hector J.L. Semantics Of Agent Communication Languages For Group Interaction, In Proc. Of Aaai-2000 Conference, Austin, Tx, Aug. 2000, 42–47.Google Scholar
- Sadek M.D. Attitudes mentales et interaction rationnelle: vers une théorie formelle de la communication. Thèse de Doctorat Informatique, Université de Rennes I, France, 1991.Google Scholar
- De Vries, W., de Boer, F., Hindriks, K., Van der Hoek, W., and Meyer, J. A Programming Language for coordinating group actions, In B. Dunin-Keplicz, E. Nawarecki (Eds.): From Theory to Practice in Multi-Agent Systems. LNAI, Springer Verlag, 2296: 313–321, 2002.Google Scholar