BDI Agents with Objectives and Preferences

  • Aniruddha Dasgupta
  • Aditya K. Ghose
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6619)


For many applications there is the need to handle user preferences and customize agents according to the user’s specific needs. It is convenient to let the user provide elaborate specification consisting of constraints, preferences and objectives. Then, let the agent system make decisions about its actions by taking into account changes in the surrounding environment as well as the user preferences that come in real-time. In this paper we describe an agent programming language where we incorporate constraints, objectives and preferences into the BDI framework. Our work especially focuses on the use of soft constraints in an agent environment where we give a quantitative dimension to this agent deliberation process by apply c-semiring based techniques to determine the preferred solution.


Multiagent System Orange Juice User Preference Operational Semantic Soft Constraint 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Apt, K.R., Wallace, M.: Constraint Logic Programming using Eclipse. Cambridge University Press, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bistarelli, S., Montanari, U., Rossi, F.: Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. Journal of ACM 44, 201–236 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brafman, R.I., Chernyavsky, Y.: Planning with goal preferences and constraints. In: Biundo, S., Myers, K.L., Rajan, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, pp. 182–191. AAAI, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Busetta, P., Ronnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: JACK intelligent agents - components for intelligent agents in java. In: AgentLink News Letter, Agent Oriented Software Pty. Ltd. (January 1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dasgupta, A., Ghose, A.K.: CASO: a framework for dealing with objectives in a constraint-based extension to AgentSpeak(L). In: Proceedings of the 29th Australasian Computer Science Conference, ACSC 2006, Darlinghurst, Australia, vol. 48, pp. 121–126. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dasgupta, A., Ghose, A.K.: Implementing reactive BDI agents with user-given constraints and objectives. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 4, 141–154 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fritz, C., Mcilraith, S.A.: Decision-theoretic golog with qualitative preferences. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), Lake District, UK, June 25, pp. 153–163 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerevini, A., Long, D.: Plan constraints and preferences in PDDL3. Technical report, Dipartimento di Elettronica per l’Automazione, Universit di Brescia (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., der Hoek, W.V., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent programming in 3APL. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Hingham, MA, USA, November 1999, vol. 2, pp. 357–401. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hindriks, K.V., Birna Riemsdijk, M.: Using temporal logic to integrate goals and qualitative preferences into agent programming. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., Birna Riemsdijk, M., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT VI 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 215–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinge, K., Ghose, A.K., Koliadis, G.: Process seer: A tool for semantic effect annotation of business process models. In: Proceedings of 2009 IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC 2009), pp. 54–63 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaffar, J., Maher, M.: Constraint logic programming: A survey. Journal of Logic Programming, Special 10th Anniversary Issue (19/20) (May/July 1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R., Lespérance, Y., Lin, F., Scherl, R.B.: Golog: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programmming 31(1-3), 59–83 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moreira, I.F., Bordini, R.H.: An operational semantics for a BDI agent-oriented programming language. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Logics for Agent-Based Systems (LABS 2002), Toulouse, France, pp. 45–59 (April 2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Plotkin, G.D.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, University of Aarhus (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: BDI agents: From theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1995), San Fransisco, USA, pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sardina, S., de Silva, L., Padgham, L.: Hierarchical planning in BDI agent programming languages: A formal approach. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), pp. 1001–1008. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sardina, S., Padgham, L.: Goals in the context of BDI plan failure and planning. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), pp. 1–8. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sardina, S., Shapiro, S.: Rational action in agent programs with prioritized goals. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pp. 417–424. University Press, New Haven (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shapiro, S., Lespérance, Y.: Modeling Multiagent Systems with CASL - A Feature Interaction Resolution Application. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 244–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Riemsdijk, B., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent programming in dribble: from beliefs to goals using plans. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pp. 393–400. ACM, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), pp. 470–481 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2), 115–152 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aniruddha Dasgupta
    • 1
  • Aditya K. Ghose
    • 1
  1. 1.Decision Systems Lab, School of Computer Science and Software EngineeringUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations