Advertisement

Reasoning about Success and Failure in Intentional Agents

  • Timothy William Cleaver
  • Abdul Sattar
  • Kewen Wang
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4078)

Abstract

Rational agents must be aware of their success and failure to truly assess their own progress towards their intended goals. In this study we describe a detailed investigation of how current BDI agents monitor their successes and failures during their reasoning cycle. Our analysis indicates that the existing architectures are inadequate to specifically detect failures in their own behaviors. This makes them unaware of the reality of the environment in which they are operating. We propose an extended BDI-like architecture to address these problems. We extend the current reasoning cycle by reformulating the execution of actions and plans, and introducing additional rules to detect failures. The resulting reformulation can be applied to existing systems such as JACK, JAM, etc. As a case study we extended JASON to implement the extended BDI architecture.

Keywords

Languages and techniques for describing (multi-)agent systems Agent programming languages frameworks toolkits meta-modeling and meta reasoning Agent-oriented software engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Russell, S., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rao, A.: 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
  3. 3.
    d’Inverno, M., Luck, M.: Engineering agentspeak(l): A formal computational model. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 1–27 (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bordini, R., Bazzan, A., Jannone, R., Basso, D., Vicari, R., Lesser, V.: Agentspeak(xl): Efficient intention selection in bdi agents via decision-theoretic task scheduling. In: Proceedings of the first International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1294–1302 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moreira, A., Bordini, R.: An operational semantics for a bdi agent-oriented programming language. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Logic for Agent-based Systems, held in conjunction with the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 45–59 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bordini, R., Fisher, M., Pardavila, C., Wooldridge, M.: Model checking agentspeak. In: Proceedings of the second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp. 409–416 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moreira, A., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.: Extending the operational semantics of a bdi agent-oriented programming language for introducing speech-act based communication. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2990, pp. 135–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bordini, R., Hübner, J.: Jason: a java-based agentspeak interpreter used with saci for multi-agent distribution over the net (2004), http://jason.sourceforge.net
  9. 9.
    Bordini, R., Moreira, A.: Proving the asymmetry thesis principles for a bdi agent-oriented programming language. Theoretical Computer Science 70 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bordini, R., Moreira, A.: Proving bdi properties of agent-oriented programming languages: The asymmetry thesis principles in agentspeak(l). Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42, 197–226 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Georgeff, M., Ingrand, F.: Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In: Proceedings of the eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 972–978 (1989)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ingrand, F., Chatila, R., Alami, R., Robert, F.: Prs: A high level supervision and control language for autonomous mobile robots. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee, J., Huber, M., Kenny, P., Durfee, E.: Um-prs: An implementation of the procedural reasoning system for multi-robot applications. In: Proceedings of the AIAA/NASA Conference on Intelligent Robots in Field, Factory, Service, and Space, pp. 842–849 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huber, M.: Jam: A bdi-theoretic mobile agent architecture. In: Proceedings of the third International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 236–243 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    d’Inverno, M., Kinny, D., Luck, M., Wooldridge, M.: A formal specification of dmars. In: Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, pp. 115–176 (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Georgeff, M., Kinny, D., Wooldridge, M.: The dmars architecture: A specification of the distributed multi-agent reasoning system. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 9, 5–53 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Busetta, P., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: Jack intelligent agents - components for intelligent agents in java. AgentLink News Letter (1999)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Howden, N., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: Jack intelligent agents - summary of an agent infrastructure. In: Proceedings of the fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy William Cleaver
    • 1
  • Abdul Sattar
    • 1
  • Kewen Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Integrated and Intelligent Systems (IIIS)Griffith UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations