Information-Passing and Belief Revisionin Multi-agent Systems

  • Rogier M. van Eijk
  • Frank S. de Boer
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1555)

Abstract

We define a programming language for multi-agent systems in which agents interact with a common environment and cooperate by exchanging their individual beliefs on the environment. In handling the information they acquire, the agents employ operations to expand, remove and update their individual belief bases. The overall framework, which generalises traditional concurrent programming concepts, is parameterised by an information system of constraints. Such a system is used to represent the environment as well as the beliefs of the agents. We give the syntax of the programming language and develop an operational semantics in terms of a transition system.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J.A. Bergstra and J.W. Klop. Process algebra for synchronous communication. Information and Control, 60:109–137, 1984.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, N. Jennings, and J. Treur. Formal specification of multi-agent systems: a real-world case. In Proceedings of International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS’95), pages 25–32. MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Brewka. Preferred subtheories: An extended logical framework for default reasoning. In Proceedings International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1043–1048. Morgan Kaufmann, 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Cohen and H.J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261, 1990.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    F.S. de Boer, J.N. Kok, C. Palamidessi, and J.J.M.M. Rutten. Non-monotonic concurrent constraint programming. In Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium, pages 315–333, Vncouver Canada, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. M. van Eijk, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A language for modular information-passing agents. Technical report UU-CS-1997-16, Universiteit Utrecht, Department of Computer Science, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. M. van Eijk, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Constructing translations between individual vocabularies in multi-agent systems. In F. Giunchiglia, editor, Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Methodology, Systems and Applications (AIMSA’98), volume 1480 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 240–253, Sozopol, Bulgaria, 1998. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R.M. van Eijk, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Systems of communicating agents. In Henri Prade, editor, Proceedings of the 13th biennial European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-98), pages 293–297, Bighton, UK, 1998. John Wiley &Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Engelfriet, C. M. Jonker, and J. Treur. Compositional verification of multiagent systems in temporal multi-epistemic logic. 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
  10. 10.
    M. Fisher. A survey of concurrent MetateM-the language and its applications. In Proceedings of First International Conference on Temporal Logic (ICTL’94), volume 827 of LNCS, pages 480–505. Springer-Verlag, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Fisher. Representing abstract agent architectures. InJ. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents VProceedings 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
  12. 12.
    K.V. Hindriks, F.S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A formal semantics for an abstract agent programming language. In M.P. Singh, A. Rao, and M.J. Wooldridge, editors, Proceedings of Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL’97), volume 1365 of LNAI, pages 215–229. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.A.R. Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Communications of the ACM, 21(8):666–677, 1978.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Katsuno and A.O. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, Proceedings of International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pages 387–394, Massachusetts, 1991. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Lespérance, H.J. Levesque, F. Lin, D. Marcu, R. Reiter, and R.B. Scherl. Foundations of a logical approach to agent programming. In Proceedings of IJCAI’95 International Workshop on Agent Theores, Architectures and Languages (ATAL’95), volume 1037 of LNAI, pages 331–346. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Seeing is believing-and so are hearing and jumping. In Topics in Artificial Intelligence (Proc. AHA’ 95), volume 992 of LNCS, pages 402–423. Springer-Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. Plotkin. A structured approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anand S. Rao. Agentspeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In W. van der Velde and J.W. Perram, editors, Agents Breaking Away, volume 1038 of LNAI, pages 42–55. Springer-Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, Proceedings of International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pages 473–484, Cambridge, Massachusettes, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    V.A. Saraswat and M. Rinard. Concurrent constraint programming. In Proceedings of Seventeenth ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 232–245, 1990.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 VProceedings 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
  22. 22.
    Y. Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence, 60:51–92, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    N. Skarmeas and K. L. Clark. Content based routing as the basis for intra-agent communication. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents VProceedings 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
  24. 24.
    J.D. Ullman and J. Widom. A First Course in Database Systems. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1997.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings. Intelligent agents: theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rogier M. van Eijk
    • 1
  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
    • 1
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations