GOAL Agents Instantiate Intention Logic

  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7360)


Various theories of cognitive or rational agents that use formal logic to define such agents have been proposed in the literature. Similarly, a range of more computationally oriented frameworks have been proposed for engineering rational agents. It remains interesting to explore the relation between these logical theories and existing computational agent frameworks that are used to program agents. First of all, by establishing a formal relation between agent logics and computational agent frameworks, agent logics may become a practical tool for reasoning about computational agents. Secondly, a formal relation may provide new insights into the kinds of agents that can be built using a particular computational agent framework. It may in particular highlight some of the assumptions built into logical as well as computational approaches.

In this paper, we explore the relation between Intention Logic and the agent programming language Goal. This is a natural choice because Intention Logic and Goal use the same set of basic concepts to define agents, namely declarative beliefs and goals. We discuss various assumptions and identify some subtle differences between the two systems. We show that agent programs written in Goal can be formally related to specifications written in a fragment of Intention Logic. It follows that a weakened version of Intention Logic can be used to prove properties of Goal agents. In this sense, such agents can be said to instantiate Intention Logic.


Programming Logic Achievement Goal Goal Operator Formal Relation Agent Program 
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.
    Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Planning for temporally extended goals. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 22, 5–27 (1998)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Boer, F.S., Hindriks, K.V., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J.C.: A Verification Framework for Agent Programming with Declarative Goals. Journal of Applied Logic 5(2), 277–302 (2007)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.E.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. University of Chicago Press (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention Is Choice with Commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emerson, E.: Temporal and Modal Mogic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, M.: Temporal representation and reasoning. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of Knowledge Representation, ch.2, pp. 513–550. Elsevier (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D.: C&l intention revisited. In: Proc. of the 9th Int. Conference Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 527–535 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindriks, K., van der Hoek, W.: GOAL Agents Instantiate Intention Logic. In: Hölldobler, S., Lutz, C., Wansing, H. (eds.) JELIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5293, pp. 232–244. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Agent Programming with Declarative Goals. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hindriks, K.V., van Riemsdijk, M.B.: Using Temporal Logic to Integrate Goals and Qualitative Preferences into Agent Programming. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 215–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hindriks, K.V.: Programming Rational Agents in Goal. In: Multi-Agent Programming, pp. 119–157. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a Logic of Rational Agency. Logic Journal of the IGPL 11(2), 133–157 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meyer, J.-J.C.: Our Quest for the Holy Grail of Agent Verification. In: Olivetti, N. (ed.) TABLEAUX 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4548, pp. 2–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Newell, A.: The Knowledge Level. Artificial Intelligence 18(1), 87–127 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Intentions and Rational Commitment. Tech. Rep. 8, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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, vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Móra, M.C., Lopes, J.G., Viccari, R.M., Coelho, H.: BDI Models and Systems: Reducing the Gap. In: Papadimitriou, C., Singh, M.P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1555, pp. 11–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J.: Executable specification of open multi-agent systems. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(1), 31–65 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Craven, R., Sergot, M.J.: Agent strands in the action language nC+. J. Applied Logic 6(2), 172–191 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lomuscio, A., Raimondi, F., Sergot, M.J.: Towards model checking interpreted systems. In: AAMAS 2003, pp. 1054–1055 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.J.: On Multi-agent Systems Specification via Deontic Logic. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 86–99. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farrell, A.D.H., Sergot, M.J., Sallé, M., Bartolini, C.: Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2-3), 99–129 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A Logic-Based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dastani, M., Hindriks, K.V., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.): Specification and Verification of Multi-agent Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Wiebe van der Hoek
    • 2
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 3
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  2. 2.The University of LiverpoolUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Utrecht UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations