Satisfying Maintenance Goals

  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4897)


A rational agent derives its choice of action from its beliefs and goals. Goals can be distinguished into achievement goals and maintenance goals. The aim of this paper is to define a mechanism which ensures the satisfaction of maintenance goals. We argue that such a mechanism requires the agent to look ahead, in order to make sure that the execution of actions does not lead to a violation of a maintenance goal. That is, maintenance goals may constrain the agent in choosing its actions. We propose a formal semantics of maintenance goals based on the notion of lookahead, and analyze the semantics by proving some properties. Additionally, we discuss the issue of achievement goal revision, in case the maintenance goals are so restrictive that all courses of action for satisfying achievement goals will lead to a violation of maintenance goals.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boutilier, C., Dean, T., Hanks, S.: Decision-theoretic planning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of AI Research 11, 1–94 (1999)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brafman, R.I., Chernyavsky, Y.: Planning with goal preferences and constraints. In: Proceedings of ICAPS 2005 (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Moldt, D., Lamersdorf, W.: Goal representation for BDI agent systems. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., Seghrouchni, A.E.F. (eds.) ProMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3346, pp. 44–65. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Goal types in agent programming. In: Mehdi Dastani, M. (ed.) ECAI 2006. Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artifical Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 141, pp. 220–224. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Boer, F.S., Hindriks, K.V., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: A Verification Framework for Agent Programming with Declarative Goals. Journal of Applied Logic (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duff, S., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: On Proactivity and Maintenance Goals. In: AAMAS 2006. Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Hakodate, pp. 1033–1040 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francez, N.: Fairness. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fritz, C., McIlraith, S.A.: Decision-theoretic golog with qualitative preferences. In: KR, pp. 153–163 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gardenfors, P.: Belief Revision. In: Cambridge Computer Tracts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent Programming with Declarative Goals. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hübner, J.F., Bordini, R.H., Wooldridge, M.: Declarative goal patterns for AgentSpeak. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U. (eds.) DALT 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4327, Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lifschitz, V.: On the semantics of strips. In: Georgeff, M.P., Lansky, A.L. (eds.) Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pp. 1–9. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: A goal deliberation strategy for BDI agent systems. In: Eymann, T., Klügl, F., Lamersdorf, W., Klusch, M., Huhns, M.N. (eds.) MATES 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3550, pp. 82–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sardina, S., Shapiro, S.: Rational action in agent programs with prioritized goals. In: AAMAS 2003. Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Melbourne, pp. 417–424 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting and avoiding interference between goals in intelligent agents. In: IJCAI 2003. Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thangarajah, J., Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Fischer, K.: Avoiding resource conflicts in intelligent agents. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) ECAI 2002. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artifical Intelligence, Lyon, France (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.C., de Boer, F.S.: Goal-oriented modularity in agent programming. In: Birna van, M. (ed.) AAMAS 2006. Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Hakodate, pp. 1271–1278 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: KR2002. Proceedings of the eighth international conference on principles of knowledge respresentation and reasoning, Toulouse (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
    • 2
  1. 1.EEMCSDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.LMUMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations