Integrating Answer Set Modules into Agent Programs

  • Stefania Costantini
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5753)

Abstract

The use of ASP in agents has been advocated since long, with ASP mainly taking the form of Action Description Languages. These kind of ASP-based languages were first introduced in [1] and [2] and have been since then extended and refined in many subsequent papers by several authors. Action Description Languages are formal models used to describe dynamic domains, by focusing on the representation of effects of actions. In particular, an action specification represents the direct effects of each action on the state of the world, while the semantics of the language takes care of all the other aspects concerning the evolution of the world (e.g., the ramification problem).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. ETAI, Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence (6) (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M.: Reasoning agents in dynamic domains. In: Minker, J. (ed.) Workshop on Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, pp. 257–279. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balduccini, M.: Answer Set Based Design of Highly Autonomous, Rational Agents. PhD thesis (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: The AAA architecture: An overview. In: AAAI Spring Symposium 2008 on Architectures for Intelligent Theory-Based Agents, AITA 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F.: From logic programming towards multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3-4), 391–419 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfond, G., Watson, R.: Modeling cooperative multi-agent systems. In: Costantini, S., Watson, R. (eds.) Proc. of ASP 2007, 4th International Workshop on Answer Set Programming at ICLP 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vos, M.D., Vermeir, D.: Extending answer sets for logic programming agents. Annals of Mathematics and Artifical Intelligence, Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems 42(1-3), 103–139 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alferes, J.J., Brogi, A., Leite, J.A., Pereira, L.M.: Evolving logic programs. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alferes, J.J., Dell’Acqua, P., Pereira, L.M.: A compilation of updates plus preferences. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 62–74. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.: Modeling rational agents within a bdi-architecture. In: Proc. of the Second Intl. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 1991), pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 (LNAI), vol. 1038. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.C.: Agent programming in 3APL. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4) (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fisher, M.: Metatem: The story so far. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 3–22. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Subrahmanian, V.S., Bonatti, P., Dix, J., Eiter, T., Kraus, S., Ozcan, F., Ross, R.: Heterogeneous Agent Systems. MIT Press/AAAI Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A.: A logic programming language for multi-agent systems. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A.: The DALI logic programming agent-oriented language. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 685–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency. In: Proc. ECAI 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bracciali, A., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Kakas, A., Lu, W., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Terreni, G., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency: Computational model and prototype implementation. In: Priami, C., Quaglia, P. (eds.) GC 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3267, pp. 340–367. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fisher, M., Bordini, R.H., Hirsch, B., Torroni, P.: Computational logics and agents: a road map of current technologies and future trends. Computational Intelligence Journal 23(1), 61–91 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kakas, A.C., Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: The role of abduction in logic programming. In: Gabbay, D., Hogger, C., Robinson, A. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 5, pp. 235–324. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oikarinen, E.: Modularity in Answer Set Programs. PhD thesis, Faculty of Information and Natural Sciences, Helsinki University of Technology (2008) ISBN 978-951-22-9581-4Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baral, C., Son, T.: Relating theories of actions and reactive control. ETAI (Electronic transactions of AI) 2(3-4), 211–271 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Costantini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di L’AquilaL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations