Whatever You Say

  • Luke Hunsberger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4160)


This paper addresses an important problem in multi-agent coordination: the formal representation of parameters in the content of agent intentions that are only partially specified (e.g., when the intended action has not yet been executed and values for the parameters have not yet been chosen or the authority for choosing such values has been delegated to others). For example, Abe might intend to rent “whatever car Zoe tells him to”, in which case the problem is how to formally represent the quoted clause (i.e., the “whatever” content). The paper presents a two-pronged approach. First, it uses the event calculus to model declarative speech-acts which agents use to establish facts about parameters in a social context. Second, it partitions the content of agent intentions into (1) a condition that the agent should refrain from determining and (2) a goal that the agent should strive to achieve. The satisfaction conditions of such intentions treat these types of content differently; however they can share variables and, thus, are linked in a restricted sense.


Multiagent System Group Decision Propositional Content Authorization Condition Satisfaction Condition 
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.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing the Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Contracts as legal institutions in organizations of autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.E.: Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dekker, P., van Rooy, R.: Intentional identity and information exchange. In: Cooper, R., Gamkrelidze, T. (eds.) Second Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farrell, A.D.H., Sergot, M., Salle, M., Bartolini, C.: Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3) (June-September 2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geach, P.: Intentional identity. Journal of Philosophy 74, 309–344 (1967)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grosz, B.J.: The contexts of collaboration. In: Sosa, E., Korta, K., Arrazola, X. (eds.) Cognition, Agency and Rationality, pp. 175–188. Kluwer Press, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosz, B.J., Hunsberger, L.: The dynamics of intention in collaborative activity. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 7, 259–272 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grosz, B.J., Kraus, S.: Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence 86, 269–357 (1996)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hunsberger, L.: Group Decision Making and Temporal Reasoning. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Available as Harvard Technical Report TR-05-02 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hunsberger, L.: A framework for specifying group decision-making mechanisms (poster). In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2005). ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 42. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kowalski, R.A., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norman, T.J., Reed, C.: A model of delegation for multi-agent systems. In: d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Fisher, M., Preist, C. (eds.) UKMAS Workshops 1996-2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2403, pp. 185–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pitt, J., Kamara, L., Sergot, M., Artikis, A.: Formalization of a voting protocol for virtual organizations. In: Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 373–380. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Allen Lane, London (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shanahan, M.: The Event Calculus Explained. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS, vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI) (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luke Hunsberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Vassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA

Personalised recommendations