Reactive Food Gathering

  • Robert Logie
  • Jon G. Hall
  • Kevin G. Waugh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3900)


This short paper describes a simple agent system aimed at addressing the food gathering problem set for the 2005 CLIMA contest. Our system is implemented as a collection of reactive agents which dynamically switch between a number of behaviours depending on interaction with their environment. Our agents maintain no internal representation of their environment and operate purely in response to their immediate surroundings. The agents collectively map the environment co-operating indirectly via environmental markers and they use these markers to assist them in locating the depot when they discover food. The required behaviour emerges from the interaction between agents and the marked environment. Despite the simplicity of the agents and their behaviours formal description is difficult. We concentrate more on identifying interesting problems in characterising system exhibiting emergent behaviour and outline possible logic approaches to dealing with them.

The application (and one or two other systems addressing the same problem in a different manner) can be downloaded from:


Multiagent System Agent Behaviour Deontic Logic Agent Level Emergent Behaviour 
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.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.: Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica 75, 63–92 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennings, N., Sycara, K., Wooldridge, M.: A roadmap of agent research and development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1, 7–38 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., Theraulaz, G.: Swarm Intelligence - from nature to artificial systems. Santa Fe institute studies in the sciences of complexity. OUP (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horty, J.: Agency and deontic logic. OUP (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van der Torre, L.W.N., Tan, Y.: An update semantics for deontic reasoning. In: Prakken, H., McNamara, P. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies in Deontic Logic and Computer Science. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Cognitive and social action. UCL press (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Fulfilling or violating obligations in normative multiagent systems. In: IAT, pp. 483–486. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Attributing mental attitudes to normative systems. In: AAMAS, pp. 942–943. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.: Investigations in grounded semantics for multiagent systems specfications via deontic logic. Technical report, Imperial College, London (2000) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halpern, J.Y.: Reasoning about knowledge: a survey. In: Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, pp. 1–34. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning About Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Norm governed multiagent systems: The delegation of control to autonomous agents. In: IAT, pp. 329–335. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Logie
    • 1
  • Jon G. Hall
    • 2
  • Kevin G. Waugh
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Computer ScienceOsaka Gakuin UniversityOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Computing, Faculty of Mathematics and ComputingThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesEngland

Personalised recommendations