Advertisement

Intention Reconsideration Reconsidered

  • Michael Wooldridge
  • Simon Parsons
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1555)

Abstract

In this paper, we consider the issue of designing agents that successfully balance the amount of time spent in reconsidering their intentions against the amount of time spent acting to achieve them. Following a brief review of the various ways in which this problem has previously been analysed, we motivate and introduce a simple formal model of agents, which is closely related to the well-known belief-desire-intention model. In this model, an agent is explicitly equipped with mechanisms for deliberation and action selection, as well as a meta-level control function, which allows the agent to choose between deliberation and action. Using the formal model, we define what it means for an agent to be optimal with respect to a task environment, and explore how various properties of an agent’s task environment can impose certain requirements on its deliberation and meta-level control components. We then show how the model can capture a number of interesting practical reasoning scenarios, and illustrate how our notion of meta-level control can easily be extended to encompass higherorder meta-level reasoning. We conclude with a discussion and pointers to future work.

Keywords

Task Environment Optimal Intention Grid World Simple Formal Model Belief Revision Function 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    M. E. Bratman. Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. E. Bratman, D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4:349–355, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261, 1990.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning About Knowledge. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. P. Georgeff and A. L. Lansky. Reactive reasoning and planning. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-87), pages 677–682, Seattle, WA, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. Kinny and M. Georgeff. Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 82–88, Sydney, Australia, 1991.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. P. Müller. The right agent (architecture) to do the right thing. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V—Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-98), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999. In this volume.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Perlis. Meta in logic. In P. Maes and D. Nardi, editors, Meta-Level Architectures and Reflection, pages 37–49. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. E. Pollack and M. Ringuette. Introducing the Tileworld: Experimentally evaluating agent architectures. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pages 183–189, Boston, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. S. Rao and M. Georgeff. Decision procedures of BDI logics. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):293–344, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Russell and D. Subramanian. Provably bounded-optimal agents. Journal of AI Research, 2:575–609, 1995.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Schild. On the relationship between BDI logics and standard logics of concurrency. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V—Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-98), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1999. In this volume.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Turner. Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation. Pitman Publishing: London, 1990.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Wooldridge
    • 1
  • Simon Parsons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electronic Engineering Queen Mary and Westfield CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations