Reasoning with Levels of Modalities in BDI Logic

  • Jeff Blee
  • David Billington
  • Abdul Sattar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5044)


Modelling real world problems using rational agents has been heavily investigated over the past two decades. BDI (Beliefs, Desires, and Intentions) Logic has been widely used to represent and reason about rational agency. However, in the real world, we often have to deal with different levels of confidence in the beliefs we hold, desires we have, and intentions that we commit to. This paper proposes the basis of a framework that extends BDI Logic to take into account qualitative levels of the mentalistic notions of beliefs, desires, and intentions. We also describe a set of axioms and properties of the extended logic.


BDI Agents Modal Logic Nonmonotonic Logic Belief Revision 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Billington, D.: Defeasible Logic is Stable. Journal of Logic and Computation 3(4), 379–400 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordini, R.H., Hubner, J.F., Vieira, R.: Jason and the Golden Fleece of Agent-Oriented Programming. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications, pp. 3–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Busetta, P., Ronnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: JACK Intelligent Agents - Components for Intelligent Agents in Java. Agent Oriented Software Pty. Ltd., Melbourne (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Casali, A., Godo, L., Sierra, C.: Graded BDI Models for Agent Architectures. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3487, pp. 126–143. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., Willmott, S.: Agent Technology Roadmap: A Roadmap for Agent Based Computing, AgentLink III (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nute, D.: Defeasible logic. In: Bartenstein, O., Geske, U., Hannebauer, M., Yoshie, O. (eds.) INAP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2543, pp. 151–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsons, S., Giorgini, P.: On using degrees of belief in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI Agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Decision Procedures for BDI Logics. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 293–343 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Hoek, W.: On the Semantics of Graded Semantics. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 2(1), 81–123 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Hoek, W., Lomuscio, A.: A Logic for Ignorance. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Ditmarsch, H.P.: Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese(Knowledge, Rationality & Action) 147, 229–275 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Linder, B., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Seeing is Believing, And so are Hearing and Jumping. In: Gori, M., Soda, G. (eds.) AI*IA 1995. LNCS, vol. 992, pp. 402–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Blee
    • 1
  • David Billington
    • 1
  • Abdul Sattar
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Integrated and Intelligent SystemsGriffith UniversityQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations