The Belief-Desire-Intention Model of Agency

  • Michael Georgeff
  • Barney Pell
  • Martha Pollack
  • Milind Tambe
  • Michael Wooldridge
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1555)


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 [1]), a number of implementations (in the IRMA architecture [2] and the various PRS-like systems currently available [7]), 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 [8]), and finally, an elegant abstract logical semantics, which have been taken up and elaborated upon widely within the agent research community [14, 16].


Intelligent Agent Business Process Management Truth Maintenance System Classical Decision Theory Thirteenth International Joint 
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.
    M. E. Bratman. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. E. Bratman, D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4:349–355, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Carrier and P. K. Machamer, editors. Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind. University of Pittsburgh Press Pittsburgh PA, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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
  8. 8.
    M. P. Georgeff and A. S. Rao. A profile of the Australian AI Institute. IEEE Expert, 11(6):89–92, December 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13.
    J. P. Müller. The Design of Intelligent Agents (LNAI Volume 1177). Sringer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. S. Rao and M. Georgeff. Decision procedures of BDI logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):293–344, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Russell and D. Subramanian. Provably bounded-optimal agents. Journal of AI Research, 2:575–609, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    H. A. Simon. A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69:99–118, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Q. Yang. Intelligent Planning: A Decomposition and Abstraction Based Approach. Sringer-Verlag: New York, 1997.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Georgeff
    • 1
  • Barney Pell
    • 2
  • Martha Pollack
    • 3
  • Milind Tambe
    • 4
  • Michael Wooldridge
    • 5
  1. 1.Australian AI Institute, Level 6MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.RIACS, NASA Ames Research CenterSanta Clara CountyUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science/Intelligent Systems ProgramUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Computer Science Department/ISIUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMarina del ReyUSA
  5. 5.Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations