Advertisement

On the Formal Semantics of Theory of Mind in Agent Communication

  • Alison R. PanissonEmail author
  • Ștefan Sarkadi
  • Peter McBurney
  • Simon Parsons
  • Rafael H. Bordini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11327)

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that applying Theory of Mind to agent technologies enables agents to model and reason about other agents’ minds, making them more efficient than agents that do not have this ability or agents that have a more limited ability of modelling others’ minds. Apart from the interesting results of combining Theory of Mind and agent technologies, an important premise has not been yet fully investigated in the AI literature: how do agents acquire and update their models of others’ minds? In the context of multi-agent systems, one of the most natural ways in which agents can acquire models of other agents’ mental attitudes is through communication. In this work, we propose an operational semantics for agents to update Theory of Mind through communication. We not only make our formalisation broadly applicable by defining a formal semantics based on components from the BDI architecture, but we also implement our approach in an agent-oriented programming language that is based on that architecture.

Keywords

Multi-Agent Systems Theory of Mind Agent-Oriented Programming Languages 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the partial support from CAPES and CNPq.

References

  1. 1.
    Black, E., Atkinson, K.: Choosing persuasive arguments for action. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 905–912 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    El Fallah Seghrouchni, A., Dix, J., Dastani, M., Bordini, R.H. (eds.): Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications, 1st edn. Springer, Boston (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89299-3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. Wiley, Chichester (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carr, A., Slade, L., Yuill, N., Sullivan, S., Ruffman, T.: Minding the children: a longitudinal study of mental state talk, theory of mind, and behavioural adjustment from the age of 3 to 10. Soc. Dev. 27(4), 826–840 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, P.R., Perrault, C.R.: Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. In: Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 169–186. Elsevier (1988)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Weerd, H., Verheij, B.: The advantage of higher-order theory of mind in the game of limited bidding. In: Proceedings of the Workshop Reasoning About Other Minds, CEUR Workshop Proceedings. vol. 751, pp. 149–164 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Weerd, H., Verbrugge, R., Verheij, B.: Higher-order social cognition in rock-paper-scissors: a simulation study. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1195–1196 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and knowledge management, pp. 456–463. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    TCC FIPA: FIPA communicative act library specification. Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2008). http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/SC00037J.html. 15 Feb 2018
  10. 10.
    Goldman, A.I.: Theory of mind. In: The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science, vol. 1. Oxford Handbooks Online, 2012 edn. (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hadidi, N., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P., et al.: Tactics and concessions for argumentation-based negotiation. In: COMMA, pp. 285–296 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadjinikolis, C., Siantos, Y., Modgil, S., Black, E., McBurney, P.: Opponent modelling in persuasion dialogues. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI, pp. 164–170 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R.: Staple: an agent programming language based on the joint intention theory. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1390–1391 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R., Huber, M.J.: Direct execution of team specifications in STAPLE. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 567–568. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: The adaptive agent architecture: achieving fault-tolerance using persistent broker teams. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp. 159–166 (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: A semantics approach for KQML - a general purpose communication language for software agents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 447–455. ACM (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mayfield, J., Labrou, Y., Finin, T.: Evaluation of KQML as an agent communication language. In: Wooldridge, M., Müller, J.P., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 1995. LNCS, vol. 1037, pp. 347–360. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3540608052_77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 261–280. Springer, Boston (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Melo, V.S., Panisson, A.R., Bordini, R.H.: Argumentation-based reasoning using preferences over sources of information. In: Fifteenth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS) (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J.: Arguing using opponent models. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 160–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12805-9_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Panisson, A.R., Melo, V.S., Bordini, R.H.: Using preferences over sources of information in argumentation-based reasoning. In: 5th Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems, pp. 31–36 (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Panisson, A.R., Meneguzzi, F., Fagundes, M., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.H.: Formal semantics of speech acts for argumentative dialogues. In: 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1437–1438 (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panisson, A.R., Meneguzzi, F., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.H.: Towards practical argumentation in multi-agent systems. In: Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems, pp. 98–103 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Panisson, A.R., Sarkadi, S., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Bordini, R.H.: Lies, bullshit, and deception in agent-oriented programming languages. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Trust Workshop, pp. 50–61 (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parsons, S., Sklar, E., McBurney, P.: Using argumentation to reason with and about trust. In: McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7543, pp. 194–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33152-7_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parsons, S., Tang, Y., Sklar, E., McBurney, P., Cai, K.: Argumentation-based reasoning in agents with varying degrees of trust. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 879–886 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics (1981)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Van de Velde, W., Perram, J.W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0031845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rienstra, T., Thimm, M., Oren, N.: Opponent models with uncertainty for strategic argumentation. In: International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI, pp. 332–338 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sarkadi, S., Panisson, A.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Bordini, R.H.: Towards an approach for modelling uncertain theory of mind in multi-agent systems. In: 6th International Conference on Agreement Technologies (2018)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thimm, M.: Strategic argumentation in multi-agent systems. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz 28(3), 159–168 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vieira, R., Moreira, A., Wooldridge, M., Bordini, R.H.: On the formal semantics of speech-act based communication in an agent-oriented programming language. J. Artif. Int. Res. 29(1), 221–267 (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. Wiley, New York (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alison R. Panisson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ștefan Sarkadi
    • 2
  • Peter McBurney
    • 2
  • Simon Parsons
    • 2
  • Rafael H. Bordini
    • 1
  1. 1.School of TechnologyPUCRSPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations