Features of Emotional Planning in Software Agents

  • Stefan Rank
  • Paolo Petta
  • Robert Trappl
Part of the CISM International Centre for Mechanical Sciences book series (CISM, volume 482)


Resource-bounded agents that are situtated in complex environments face challenges of uncertainty, non-determinism, conflicting goals, and social interaction. We investigate planning and emotional processes as helpful assets in this context and point out possibilities of interactions between them. The different perspectives of these processes on the tasks of situated agents are found to be complementary in whole architectural designs, although substantial consolidation and integration is needed.


Autonomous Agent Software Agent Planning Module Emotion Theory Agent Architecture 
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. [Agre & Chapman 1987]
    Agre P.E., Chapman D.: Pengi: An Implementation of a Theory of Activity, in Proceedings of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos/Palo Alto/San Francisco, pp.268–272, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. [Agre & Chapman 1991]
    Agre P.E., Chapman D.: What are plans for?, Technical Report: AIM-1050a, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. [Agre & Horswill 1997]
    Agre P., Horswill I.: Lifeworld Analysis, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 6:111–145, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [Allen 1999]
    Alien S.: Concern Processing in Autonomous Agents, Cognitive Science Research Centre, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, UK, EU, Ph.D. Thesis, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [Arnold 1960]
    Arnold M.B.: Emotion and Personality, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, USA, (Vols. I and II), 1960.Google Scholar
  6. [Avradinis & Aylett 2003]
    Avradinis N., Aylett R.: Agents with no aims: Motivation-driven continuous planning, in Rist T. et al. (eds.), Intelligent Virtual Agents, 4th International Workshop (IVA 2003), September 15–17, Kloster Irrsee, LNCS 2792, Springer Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp.269–273, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. [Bates 1994]
    Bates J.: The Role of Emotion in Believable Agents, Communications of the ACM, Special Issue: Intelligent Agents, 37(7):122–125, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [Blythe 1999]
    Blythe J.: Decision-theoretic Planning, AI Magazine, 20(2):37–54, 1999.Google Scholar
  9. [Boutilier et al. 1999]
    Boutilier C, Dean T., Hanks, S.: Decision-Theoretic Planning: Structural Assumptions and Computational Leverage, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 11(1):l–94, 1999.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [Brooks 1991]
    Brooks R.A.: Intelligence without Representation, Artificial Intelligence, Special Volume: Foundations of Artificial Intelligence, 47(1–3):139–159, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [Clark 1997]
    Clark A.: Being There—Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge/London, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. [Doyle 1996]
    Doyle J.: Toward Rational Planning and Replanning, in Austin T. (ed.): Advanced Planning Technology: Technological Achievements of the ARPA/Rorne Laboratory Planning Initiative, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, USA, pp. 130–135, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. [Doyle 1999]
    Doyle J.: Rational Decision Making, Wilson R.A., Keil F. (eds.): MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MITECS), MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge/London, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. [Doyle 1999]
    Doyle J.: Bounded Rationality, Wilson R.A., Keil F. (eds.): MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MITECS), MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge/London, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. [Ellsworth & Scherer 2003]
    Ellsworth P.C., Scherer K.R.: Appraisal Processes in Emotion, Davidson R.J. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp.572–595, 2003.Google Scholar
  16. [Ferguson 1992]
    Ferguson I.A.: Touring Machines: An Architecture for Dynamic, Rational, Mobile Agents, University of Cambridge, UK, EU, Ph.D. Thesis, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [Frijda 1986]
    Frijda N.H.: The Emotions, Cambridge University Press, Paris, France, EU, 1986.Google Scholar
  18. [Glass & Grosz 2000]
    Glass A., Grosz B.: Socially conscious decision-making, in Sierra C. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents2000), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, June 3–7, 2000, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp.217–224, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [Goldin et al. 2004]
    Goldin D.Q., Smolka S.A., Attie P.C., Sonderegger E.L.: Turing Machines, Transition Systems, and Interaction, Information and Computation, 194(2):101–128, 2004.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. [Gratch 1999]
    Gratch J.: Why You Should Buy an Emotional Planner, in Velasquez J.D. (ed.), Emotion-Based Agent Architectures (EBAA’99), May 1, 1999, Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents’99), Seattle, WA, USA, pp.53–60, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. [Gratch & Marsella 2004]
    Gratch J., Marsella S.: A Domain-independent Framework for Modeling Emotion, Cognitive Systems Research, 5(4):269–306, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [Grosz et al. 2004]
    Grosz B.J., Kraus S., Talman S., Stossel B., Havlin M.: The Influence of Social Dependencies on Decision-Making: Initial Investigations with a New Game, in Jennings N. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the third International joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’04), July 19–23, 2004, New York City. NY, USA, IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington D.C., USA, Vol.2, pp.782–789, 2004.Google Scholar
  23. [Horty & Pollack 2000]
    Horty J.F., Pollack M.E.: Evaluating New Options in the Context of Existing Plans, Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. [Huber 1999]
    Huber M.J.: JAM: a BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture, in Etzioni O. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the third annual conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents’99), Seattle, WA, USA, May 1–5, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp.236–243, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [Jardins et al. 1999]
    Jardins M. des, Durfee E.H., Ortiz C.L., Wolverton M.J.: A Survey of Research in Distributed, Continual Planning, AI Magazine, 20(4):13–22, 1999.Google Scholar
  26. [Jung & Fischer 1998]
    Jung C.G., Fischer K.: Methodological Comparison of Agent Models, DFKI Research Report-98-01, DFKI, Saarbrücken, Germany, EU, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. [Lazarus 1991]
    Lazarus R.S.: Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, London/Oxford/New York, 1991.Google Scholar
  28. [Madani et al. 2003]
    Madani O., Hanks S., Condon A.: On the undecidability of probabilistic planning and related stochastic optimization problems, Artificial Intelligence, 147(l–2):5–34, 2003.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. [Moffat 1997]
    Moffat D.: Personality Parameters and Programs, in Trappl R., Petta P. (eds.), Creating Personalities for Synthetic Actors, LNAI 1195, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp. 120–165, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [Myers 1999]
    Myers K.L.: CPEF: A Continuous Planning and Execution Framework, Al Magazine, 20(4):63–70, 1999.Google Scholar
  31. [Ortony 2003]
    Ortony A.: On Making Believable Emotional Agents Believable, in Trappl R. et al. (eds.), Emotions in Humans and Artifacts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA/London, UK, pp. 189–212, 2003.Google Scholar
  32. [Petta 1999]
    Petta P.: Principled Generation of Expressive Behavior in an Interactive Exhibit, in Velasquez J.D. (ed.), Emotion-Based Agent Architectures (EBAA’99), May 1, 1999, Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents’99), Seattle, WA, USA, pp.94–98, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. [Petta 2003]
    Petta P.: The Role of Emotions in a Tractable Architecture for Situated Cognizers, in Trappl R. et al. (eds.), Emotions in Humans and Artifacts, MIT Press Cambridge, MA/London, UK, pp.251–288, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. [Pfeifer & Scheier 1999]
    Pfeifer R., Scheier C: Understanding Intelligence, MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge/London, 1999.Google Scholar
  35. [Pollack 1992]
    Pollack M.E.: The Uses of Plans, Artificial Intelligence, 57(l):43–68, 1992.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. [Pollack & Horty 1999]
    Pollack M.E., Horty J.F.: There’s More to Life Than Making Plans: Plan Management in Dynamic, Multiagent Environments, Al Magazine, 20(4):71–84, 1999.Google Scholar
  37. [Rank 2004]
    Rank S.: Affective Acting: An Appraisal-based Architecture for Agents as Actors, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria, EU, M.S. Thesis, 2004.Google Scholar
  38. [Rintanen & Hoffmann 2001]
    Rintanen J., Hoffmann J.: An overview of recent algorithms for Al planning, Kunstliche Intelligenz, 2/01, 2001.Google Scholar
  39. [Roseman et al. 1996]
    Roseman I.J., Antoniou A.A., Jose P.E.: Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and Comprehensive Theory, Cognition and Emotion, 10(3):241–277, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [Roseman & Smith 2001]
    Roseman I.J., Smith C.A.: Appraisal Theory: Overview, Assumptions, Varieties, Controversies, in Scherer K.R. et al. (eds.), Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp.3–19, 2001.Google Scholar
  41. [Sander et al. 2003]
    Sander D., Grafman J., Zalla T.: The Human Amygdala: An Evolved System for Relevance Detection, Reviews in the Neuro sciences, 14(4):303–316, 2003.Google Scholar
  42. [Scheutz 2001]
    Scheutz M.: Affective vs. Deliberative Agent Control, Proceedings of the AISB 2001 Convention: Emotion, Cognition and Affective Computing, March 21–24, 2001, University of York, UK, EU, pp.1–10, 2001.Google Scholar
  43. [Scheutz 2004]
    Scheutz M.: A Framework for Evaluating Affective Control, in Trappl R. (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems 2004, Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, Austria, EU, pp.645–650, 2004.Google Scholar
  44. [Schut et al. 2004]
    Schut M., Wooldridge M., Parsons S.: The theory and practice of intention reconsideration, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 16(4):251–293, 2004.Google Scholar
  45. [Sloman & Scheutz 2002]
    Sloman A., Scheutz M.: A Framework for Comparing Agent Architectures, Proceedings UKCI 02: UK Workshop on Computational Intelligence, September 2–4, 2002, Birmingham, UK, EU, 2002.Google Scholar
  46. [Sloman 2004]
    Sloman A.: What Are Emotion Theories About?, Hudlicka E., Canamero L. (eds.), Architectures for Modeling Emotion: Cross-Disciplinary Foundations, Papers from 2004 AAAI Spring Symposium, Technical Report SS-04-02, AAAI Press/MIT Press, Cambridge/Menlo Park, pp. 128–134, 2004.Google Scholar
  47. [Smith et al. 2000]
    Smith D.E., Frank J., Jonsson A.K.: Bridging the Gap Between Planning and Scheduling, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(l):47–84, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [Staller & Petta 1998]
    Staller A., Petta P.: Towards a Tractable Appraisal-Based Architecture for Situated Cognizers, in Cañamero D. et al. (eds.), Grounding Emotions in Adaptive Systems, Workshop Notes, 5th International Conference of the Society for Adaptive Behaviour (SAB98), Zurich, Switzerland, pp.56–61, 1998.Google Scholar
  49. [Staller & Petta 2001]
    Staller A., Petta P.: Introducing Emotions into the Computational Study of Social Norms: A First Evaluation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 4(1), 2001.Google Scholar
  50. [Swagerman 1987]
    Swagerman J.: The A Rtificial Concern Realization System ACRES: A Computer Model of Emotion, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, EU, Ph.D. Thesis, 1987.Google Scholar
  51. [Wegner & Goldin 2003]
    Wegner P., Goldin D.: Computation beyond turing machines, Communications of the ACM, Digital Rights Management, 46(4): 100–102 (Technical opinion column), 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© CISM, Udine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Rank
    • 2
  • Paolo Petta
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert Trappl
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Medical Cybernetics and Artificial Intelligence, Center for Brain ResearchMedical University of ViennaVienna
  2. 2.Austrian Research Institute for Artificial IntelligenceViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations