AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language

  • Anand S. Rao
Frameworks and Architectures
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1038)

Abstract

Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents have been investigated by many researchers from both a theoretical specification perspective and a practical design perspective. However, there still remains a large gap between theory and practice. The main reason for this has been the complexity of theorem-proving or model-checking in these expressive specification logics. Hence, the implemented BDI systems have tended to use the three major attitudes as data structures, rather than as modal operators. In this paper, we provide an alternative formalization of BDI agents by providing an operational and proof-theoretic semantics of a language AgentSpeak(L). This language can be viewed as an abstraction of one of the implemented BDI systems (i.e., PRS) and allows agent programs to be written and interpreted in a manner similar to that of horn-clause logic programs. We show how to perform derivations in this logic using a simple example. These derivations can then be used to prove the properties satisfied by BDI agents.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    B. Burmeister and K. Sundermeyer. Cooperative problem-solving guided by intentions and perception. In E. Werner and Y. Demazeau, editors, Decentralized A.I. 3, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992. North Holland.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(3), 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. P. Georgeff and A. L. Lansky. Procedural knowledge. In Proceedings of the IEEE Special Issue on Knowledge Representation, volume 74, pages 1383–1398, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. M. Huntbach, N. R. Jennings, and G. A. Ringwood. How agents do it in stream logic programming. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), San Francisco, USA, June, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. F. Ingrand, M. P. Georgeff, and A. S. Rao. An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control. IEEE Expert, 7(6), 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    N. R. Jennings. On being responsible. In Y. Demazeau and E. Werner, editors, Decentralized A.I. 3. North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of belief, desire, joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289–318, 1993.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Kinny, M. Ljungberg, A. S. Rao, E. A. Sonenberg, G. Tidhar, and E. Werner. Planned team activity. In Artificial Social Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI-830), Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1994. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Lesperance, H. J. Levesque, F. Lin, D. Marcu, R. Reiter, and R. B. Scherl. Foundations of a logical approach to agent programming. In Working notes of the IJCAI-95 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. P. Muller, M. Pischel, and M. Thiel. Modelling reactive behaviour in vertically layered agent architectures. In Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 890, Heidelberg, Germany, 1995. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    U Nilsson. Abstract interpretations and abstract machines. Technical Report Dissertation No 265, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden, 1992.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. S. Rao. Decision procedures for propositional linear-time belief-desire-intention logics. In Working notes of the IJCAI-95 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. An abstract architecture for rational agents. In C. Rich, W. Swartout, and B. Nebel, editors, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. A model-theoretic approach to the verification of situated reasoning systems. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), Chamberey, France, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. A. Ringwood. A brief history of stream parallel logic programming. Logic Programming Newsletter, 7(2):2–4, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Y. Shoham. Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence, 60(1):51–92, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Singh and N. Asher. Towards a formal theory of intentions. In J. van Eijck, editor, Logics in AI, volume LNAI:478, pages 472–486. Springer Verlag, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. R. Thomas. The PLACA agent programming language. In Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 890, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1995. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    W. van der Hoek, B. van Linder, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. A logic of capabilities. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Logical Foundations of Computer Science (LFCS'94), Lecture Notes in Computer Science LNCS 813. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J. J. Ch. Meyer. How to motivate your agents? In Working notes of the IJCAI-95 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Montreal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Weerasooriya, A. S. Rao, and K. Ramamohanarao. Design of a concurrent agent-oriented language. In Intelligent Agents: Theories, Architectures, and Languages. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence LNAI 890, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1995. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Wooldridge and M. Fisher. A decision procedure for a temporal belief logic. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Temporal Logic, Bonn, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anand S. Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Artificial Intelligence InstituteMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations