The Belief-Desire-Intention Model of Agency
Within the ATAL community, the belief-desire-intention (BDI) model has come to be possibly the best known and best studied model of practical reasoning agents. There are several reasons for its success, but perhaps the most compelling are that the BDI model combines a respectable philosophical model of human practical reasoning, (originally developed by Michael Bratman ), a number of implementations (in the IRMA architecture  and the various PRS-like systems currently available ), several successful applications (including the now-famous fault diagnosis system for the space shuttle, as well as factory process control systems and business process management ), and finally, an elegant abstract logical semantics, which have been taken up and elaborated upon widely within the agent research community [14, 16].
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.M. E. Bratman. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1987.Google Scholar
- 3.M. Carrier and P. K. Machamer, editors. Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind. University of Pittsburgh Press Pittsburgh PA, 1997.Google Scholar
- 4.E. Ephrati, M. E. Pollack, and S. Ur. Deriving multi-agent coordination through filtering strategies. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), pages 679–687, Montréal, Québec,Canada, August 1995.Google Scholar
- 5.I. A. Ferguson. Integrated control and coordinated behaviour: A case for agent models. In M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, editors, Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures, and Languages (LNAI Volume 890), pages 203–218. Springer-Verlag: Berlin,Germany, January 1995.Google Scholar
- 6.M. P. Georgeff and F. F. Ingrand. Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), pages 972–978, Detroit, MI, 1989.Google Scholar
- 7.M. P. Georgeff and A. L. Lansky. Reactive reasoning and planning. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), pages 677–682, Sattle, WA, 1987.Google Scholar
- 9.B. Grosz and S. Kraus. Collaborative plans for group activities. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pages 367–373, Chambéry, France, 1993.Google Scholar
- 10.J. F. Horty and M. E Pollack. Option evaluation in context. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-98), 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.D. Kinny and M. Georgeff. Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 82–88, Sydney, Australia, 1991.Google Scholar
- 12.H. J. Levesque, P. R. Cohen, and J. H. T. Nunes. On acting together. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pages 94–99, Boston, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
- 13.J. P. Müller. The Design of Intelligent Agents (LNAI Volume 1177). Sringer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
- 16.K. Schild. On the relationship between BDI logics and standard logics of concurrency. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V —Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-98), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999. In this volume.Google Scholar