Automating Belief Revision for AgentSpeak

  • Natasha Alechina
  • Rafael H. Bordini
  • Jomi F. Hübner
  • Mark Jago
  • Brian Logan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4327)


The AgentSpeak agent-oriented programming language has recently been extended with various new features, such as speech-act based communication, internal belief additions, and support for reasoning with ontological knowledge, which imply the need for belief revision within an AgentSpeak agent. In this paper, we show how a polynomial-time belief-revision algorithm can be incorporated into the Jason AgentSpeak interpreter by making use of Jason’s language constructs and customisation features. This is one of the first attempts to include automatic belief revision within an interpreter for a practical agent programming language.


Multiagent System Belief Revision Belief State Belief Base Ontological Reasoning 
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.
    Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530 (1985)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alechina, N., Jago, M., Logan, B.: Resource-bounded belief revision and contraction. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U., Omicini, A., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3904, pp. 141–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ancona, D., Mascardi, V., Hübner, J.F., Bordini, R.H.: Coo-AgentSpeak: Cooperation in AgentSpeak through plan exchange. In: Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., Tambe, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2004), pp. 698–705. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P. (eds.): Handbook of Description Logics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.): Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, vol. 15. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., et al.: Jason: A Java-based Agentspeak interpreter used with SACI for multi-agent distribution over the net, manual, release version 0.7 edn. (August 2005),
  7. 7.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Vieira, R.: Jason and the Golden Fleece of agent-oriented programming. In: Bordini et al. (eds.) [5], ch. 1Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bordini, R.H., Moreira, Á.F.: Proving BDI properties of agent-oriented programming languages: The asymmetry thesis principles in AgentSpeak(L). Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42(1–3), 197–226 (2004); (Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems) MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, H., Finin, T., Joshi, A.: The SOUPA Ontology for Pervasive Computing. In: Tamma, V., et al. (eds.) Ontologies for Agents: Theory and Experiences, pp. 233–258, BirkHauser (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clark, K.L., McCabe, F.G.: Ontology schema for an agent belief store. IJCIS (to appear, 2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In: Bordini et al. [5], ch. 2Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Bruijn, J., Polleres, A., Fensel, D.: Owl lite. working draft, WSML delieverable D20 v0.1, WSML (July 18, 2004),
  13. 13.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Conditionals and changes of belief. In: Niiniluoto, I., Tuomela, R. (eds.) The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change, pp. 381–404. North Holland, Amsterdam (1978)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Knowledge in Flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: A proposal for an OWL rules language. In: Feldman, S.I., Uretsky, M., Najork, M., Wills, C.E. (eds.) Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2004, pp. 723–731. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Makinson, D.: How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change. Synthese 62, 347–363 (1985)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moreira, Á.F., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.H.: Extending the operational semantics of a BDI agent-oriented programming language for introducing speech-act based communication. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 135–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreira, Á.F., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.: Agent-oriented programming with underlying ontological reasoning. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U., Omicini, A., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2005. LNCS, vol. 3904, pp. 155–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nebel, B.: A knowledge level analysis of belief revision. In: Brachman, R., Levesque, H.J., Reiter, R. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the First International Conference, San Mateo, pp. 301–311. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nebel, B.: Syntax-based approaches to belief revision. In: Gärdenfors, P. (ed.) Belief Revision, vol. 29, pp. 52–88. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nebel, B.: Base revision operations and schemes: Representation, semantics and complexity. In: Cohn, A.G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1994), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 341–345. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    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, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rott, H.: Just Because: Taking belief bases seriously. In: Buss, S.R., Hájaek, P., Pudlák, P. (eds.) Logic Colloquium 1998—Proceedings of the 1998 ASL European Summer Meeting. Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 13, pp. 387–408. Association for Symbolic Logic (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Eijk, R.M., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Information-passing and belief revision in multi-agent systems. In: Rao, A.S., Singh, M.P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1555, pp. 29–45. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams, M.-A.: Two operators for theory base change. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 259–265. World Scientific, Singapore (1992)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams, M.-A.: Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In: Proceedings of Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1995), San Mateo, pp. 1541–1549. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wooldridge, M.: Reasoning about Rational Agents. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Alechina
    • 1
  • Rafael H. Bordini
    • 2
  • Jomi F. Hübner
    • 3
  • Mark Jago
    • 1
  • Brian Logan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer ScienceUniversity of DurhamDurhamUK
  3. 3.Dept. Sistemas e ComputaçãoUniv. Regional de BlumenauBlumenauBrazil

Personalised recommendations