Declarative Agent Control

  • Antonis Kakas
  • Paolo Mancarella
  • Fariba Sadri
  • Kostas Stathis
  • Francesca Toni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3487)


In this work, we extend the architecture of agents (and robots) based upon fixed, one-size-fits-all cycles of operation, by providing a framework of declarative specification of agent control. Control is given in terms of cycle theories, which define in a declarative way the possible alternative behaviours of agents, depending on the particular circumstances of the (perceived) external environment in which they are situated, on the internal state of the agents at the time of operation, and on the agents’ behavioural profile. This form of control is adopted by the KGP model of agency and has been successfully implemented in the PROSOCS platform. We also show how, via cycle theories, we can formally verify properties of agents’ behaviour, focusing on the concrete property of agents’ interruptibility. Finally, we give some examples to show how different cycle theories give rise to different, heterogeneous agents’ behaviours.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bordini, R.H., Bazzan, A.L.C., Jannone, R.O., Basso, D.M., Vicari, R.M., Lesser, V.R.: AgentSpeak(XL): Efficient intention selection in bdi agents via decision-theoretic task scheduling. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lewis Johnson, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS 2002, Part III, Bologna, Italy, July 15–19, pp. 1294–1302. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 for GC: Computational model and prototype implementation. In: Proc. Global Computing 2004 Workshop. LNCS, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewka, G.: Reasoning with priorities in default logic. In: AAAI 1994, pp. 940–945. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dastani, M., de Boer, F.S., Dignum, F., van der Hoek, W., Kroese, M., Meyer, J.C.: Programming the deliberation cycle of cognitive robots. In: Proc. of 3rd International Cognitive Robotics Workshop (CogRob 2002), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A.C.: Logic programming without negation as failure. In: Logic Programming, Proceedings of the 1995 International Symposium, Portland, Oregon, pp. 369–384 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification, Published on August 10th, 2001, available for download from the FIPA website (August 2001),
  7. 7.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.C.: Agent programming in 3APL. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4), 357–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Dung, P.M.: The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Logic Programming, Santa Marherita Ligure, Italy, pp. 504–519 (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Rosenschein, J.S., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M., Yokoo, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, July 14–18, pp. 883–890. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency. In: Lopez de Mantaras, R., Saitta, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Valencia, Spain ECAI 2004, August 2004. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sadri, F.: From logic programming towards multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25(3/4), 391–419 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4, 275–296 (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) FAPR 1996. LNCS, vol. 1085, pp. 510–524. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.: BDI Agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, San Francisco, California, USA, June 1995, pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shoham, Y.: Agent-oriented programming. Artificial Intelligence 60(1), 51–92 (1993)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stathis, K., Kakas, A.C., Lu, W., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Bracciali, A.: PROSOCS: a platform for programming software agents in computational logic, Vienna, Austria, April 13-16, pp. 523–528 (2004). Extended version to appear in a special issue of Applied Artificial Intelligence. Taylor & Francis, Abington (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonis Kakas
    • 1
  • Paolo Mancarella
    • 2
  • Fariba Sadri
    • 3
  • Kostas Stathis
    • 2
    • 4
  • Francesca Toni
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cyprus 
  2. 2.Dip. di InformaticaUniversità di Pisa 
  3. 3.Dept. of ComputingImperial CollegeLondon
  4. 4.School of InformaticsCity UniversityLondon

Personalised recommendations