Advertisement

The Roles of Active Perception in Intelligent Agent Systems

  • Raymond So
  • Liz Sonenberg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4078)

Abstract

This paper discusses the need to incorporate the notion of active perception in intelligent agent systems. There are two justifications for this proposition. First, we believe perception should receive more attention and some special treatment. Perception is the most direct and effective way to update an agent’s beliefs about the status of its environment. In theory, an overwhelming portion of an agent’s decisions about its next course of action, or next actions, in either the reactive or deliberative model, should be heavily influenced by what is happening in the environment – this is one of the important characteristics that differentiates agents from the traditional software design paradigm. An agent’s internal activities, such as deliberation and means-end analysis, to a large extent, are also driven by what have been sensed. The second justification is that active perception plays an imperative role in situation awareness. Active perception is an important capability that directs an agent’s limited attention to the relevant aspects of the environment in an proactive manner.

Keywords

MultiAgent System Situation Awareness Software Agent Active Perception FIFO Queue 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Broadbent, D.: Perception and communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broadbent, D.: Decision and stress. Academic Press, London (1971)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chrisman, L., Simmons, R.: Sensible planning: Focusing perceptual attention. In: The Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Durso, F.T., Gronlund, S.D.: Situation awareness. In: Handbook of Applied Cognition, pp. 283–305. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley, M.R.: Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. In: Endsley, M.R., Garland, D.J. (eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement, pp. 3–32. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endsley, M.R., Bolte, B., Jones, D.G.: Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design. Taylor and Francis, Abington (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endsley, M.R., Sollenberger, R., Stein, E.: The use of predictive displays for aiding controller situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinze, C.: Modelling Intention Recognition for Intelligent Agent Systems. PhD thesis, The University of Melbourne (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kinny, D., Georgeff, M., Hendler, J.: Experiment in optimal sensing for situated agents. In: The Second Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, PRICAI 1992, Seoul, Korea (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kowalski, R.: Database updates in the event calculus. The Journal of Logic Programming 12, 121–146 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scherl, R., Levesque, H.: The frame problem and knowledge-producing actions. In: The Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1993). AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schut, M., Wooldridge, M.: Principles of intention reconsideration. In: Muller, J.P., Andre, E., Sen, S., Frasson, C. (eds.) The Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 340–347. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schut, M., Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: The theory and practice of intention reconsideration. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 16(4), 261–293 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shanahan, M.: The event calculus explained. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shanahan, M.: Perception as abduction: Turning sensor data into meaningful representation. Cognitive Science 29, 103–134 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    So, R., Sonenberg, L.: Agents with initiative: A preliminary report. In: Nickles, M., Rovatsos, M., Weiss, G. (eds.) AUTONOMY 2003. LNCS, vol. 2969, pp. 237–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    So, R., Sonenberg, L.: Situation awareness in intelligent agents: Foundations for a theory of proactive agent behavior. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2004), Beijing, China, pp. 86–92. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weyns, D., Steegmans, E., Holvoet, T.: Towards active perception in situated multi-agent systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18, 867–883 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wooldridge, M.: Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley and Sons Press, England (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond So
    • 1
  • Liz Sonenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations