Variety of Behaviours Through Profiles in Logic-Based Agents

  • Fariba Sadri
  • Francesca Toni
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3900)


In an earlier paper we [6] presented a declarative approach for agent control. In that work we described how control can be specified in terms of cycle theories, which define declaratively the possible alternative behaviours of agents, depending on their internal state and (their perception of) the external environment in which they are situated. This form of control has been adopted for logic-based KGP agents [8, 2]. In this paper we show how using this form of control specification we can specify different profiles of agents, how they would vary the behaviour of agents and what advantages they have with respect to factors in the application and in the environment, such as time-criticality.


Basic Rule Logic Programming Action Execution Operational Trace Commitment Strategy 
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.
    Athienitou, F., Bracciali, A., Endriss, U., Kakas, A.C., Lu, W., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Profile related properties. Technical report, SOCS deliverable (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracciali, A., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Kakas, A.C., Lu, W., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Terreni, G., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency for global computing: Computational model and prototype implementation. In: Priami, C., Quaglia, P. (eds.) GC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3267, p. 342. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dimopoulos, Y., Kakas, A.C.: Logic programming without negation as failure. In: Proc. ILPS, pp. 369–384 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Dung, P.M.: The acceptability semantics for logic programs, pp. 504–519 (1994)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Declarative agent control. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3487, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kakas, A.C., Moraitis, P.: Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents, Melbourne, Victoria, July 14–18, pp. 883–890 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency. In: Proc. ECAI 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. In: Gabbay, D.M., Ohlbach, H.J. (eds.) FAPR 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1085, pp. 510–524. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. Readings in Agents, 317–328 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stathis, K., Kakas, A.C., Lu, W., Demetriou, N., Endriss, U., Bracciali, A.: PROSOCS: A platform for programming software agents in computational logic. In: Proc. AT2AI (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fariba Sadri
    • 1
  • Francesca Toni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial CollegeLondon

Personalised recommendations