A Framework for Dynamical Intention in Hybrid Navigating Agents

  • Eric Aaron
  • Henny Admoni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5572)

Abstract

As a foundation for goal-directed behavior, the reactive and deliberative systems of a hybrid agent can share a single, unifying representation of intention. In this paper, we present a framework for incorporating dynamical intention into hybrid agents, based on ideas from spreading activation models and belief-desire-intention (BDI) models. In this framework, intentions and other cognitive elements are represented as continuously varying quantities, employed by both sub-deliberative and deliberative processes: On the reactive level, representations support some real-time responsive task re-sequencing; on the deliberative level, representations support common logical reasoning. Because cognitive representations are shared across both levels, inter-level integration is straightforward. Furthermore, dynamical intention is demonstrably consistent with philosophical observations that inform conventional BDI models, so dynamical intentions function as conventional intentions. After describing our framework, we briefly summarize simple demonstrations of our approach, suggesting that dynamical intention-guided intelligence can potentially extend benefits of reactivity without compromising advantages of deliberation in a hybrid agent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bratman, M.: Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Georgeff, M., Lansky, A.: Reactive reasoning and planning. In: AAAI 1987, pp. 677–682 (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proc. of Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collins, A.M., Loftus, E.F.: A spreading activation theory of semantic priming. Psychological Review 82, 407–428 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maes, P.: The dynamics of action selection. In: IJCAI 1989, pp. 991–997 (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aaron, E., Ivančić, F., Metaxas, D.: Hybrid system models of navigation strategies for games and animations. In: Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, pp. 7–20 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T., Lafferriere, G., Pappas, G.: Discrete abstractions of hybrid systems. Proc. of the IEEE 88(7), 971–984 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Axelsson, H., Egerstedt, M., Wardi, Y.: Reactive robot navigation using optimal timing control. In: American Control Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aaron, E., Sun, H., Ivančić, F., Metaxas, D.: A hybrid dynamical systems approach to intelligent low-level navigation. In: Proceedings of Computer Animation, pp. 154–163 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldenstein, S., Karavelas, M., Metaxas, D., Guibas, L., Aaron, E., Goswami, A.: Scalable nonlinear dynamical systems for agent steering and crowd simulation. Computers And Graphics 25(6), 983–998 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aaron, E., Admoni, H.: Supplementary HAIS 2009 material (2009), http://eaaron.web.wesleyan.edu/hais09_supplement.html
  12. 12.
    Asarin, E., Dang, T., Girard, A.: Hybridization methods for the analysis of non-linear systems. Acta Informatica 43(7), 451–476 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Aaron
    • 1
  • Henny Admoni
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceWesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA

Personalised recommendations