Goal Decomposition Tree: An Agent Model to Generate a Validated Agent Behaviour

  • Gaële Simon
  • Bruno Mermet
  • Dominique Fournier
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3904)


This paper deals with a goal-oriented agent model called Goal Decomposition Tree (GDT) allowing both to specify and validate the behaviour of an agent. This work takes place in a global framework whose goal is to define a process allowing to start from a problem specification to obtain a validated implementation of a corresponding MAS. The GDT model has been used to specify a prey-predator system which has been verified this way.


Multiagent System Agent Model Goal Management Satisfaction Condition Plan Language 
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.
    Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., Wooldridge, M.: Verifiable multi-agent programs. In: Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3067, pp. 72–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous agents and multiagent systems 8, 203–236 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Boer, F.S., Hindriks, K.V., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Meyer. Agent programming with declarative goals. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories Architectures and Language, pp. 228–243 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flouret, M., Mermet, B., Simon, G.: Vers une méthodologie de développement de sma adaptés aux problèmes d’optimisation. In: Systèmes multi-agents et systèmes complexes: ingénierie, résolution de problèmes et simulation, JFIADSMA 2002, Hermes, pp. 245–248 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fournier, D., Mermet, B., Simon, G.: A compositional proof system for agent behaviour. In: Muratidis, H., Barley, M., Massacci, F., Unruh, A. (eds.) Proceedings of SASEMAS 2005, pp. 22–26 (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hubner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: Specification structurelle, fonctionnelle et deontique d’organisations dans les sma. In: Journees Francophones Intelligence Artificielle et Systemes Multi-Agents (JFIADSM 2002), Hermes (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khallouf, J., Winikoff, M.: Towards goal-oriented design of agent systems. In: Proceedings of ISEAT 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mermet, B., Simon, G., Fournier, D., Flouret, M.: SPACE: A method to increase tracability in MAS development. In: Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3067, pp. 201–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing intelligent agent systems: a practical guide. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: An abstract architecture for rational agents. In: Proceeding of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, San Mateo. CA, pp. 439–449. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Simon, G., Flouret, M., Mermet, B.: A methodology to solve optimisation problems with MAS application to the graph colouring problem. In: Scott, D.R. (ed.) AIMSA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2443, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simon, G., Mermet, B., Fournier, D., Flouret, M.: The provable goal decomposition tree: a behaviour model of an agent. Technical report, Laboratoire Informatique du Havre (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sparkman, C.H., Deloach, S.A., Self, A.L.: Automated derivation of complex agent architectures from analysis specifications. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, p. 278. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Dynamics of declarative goals in agent programming. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vincent, R., Horling, B., Lesser, V.: An agent infrastructure to build and evaluate multi-agent systems: the java agent framework and multi-agent system simulator. In: Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scalable Multi-AgentSystems (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative & proceduralgoals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002) (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The gaia methodology for agentoriented analysis and design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaële Simon
    • 1
  • Bruno Mermet
    • 1
  • Dominique Fournier
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Le HavreFrance

Personalised recommendations