Advertisement

Integrating Expectation Monitoring into BDI Agents

  • Surangika Ranathunga
  • Stephen Cranefield
  • Martin Purvis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7217)

Abstract

Although expectations play an important role in designing cognitive agents, monitoring for agent expectations is not explicitly being handled in most common agent programming environments. There are techniques for monitoring fulfilment and violation of agent expectations, however they are not linked with common agent programming environments so that agents can be easily programmed to respond to these circumstances. This paper investigates how to delegate this aspect of agent practical reasoning to an expectation monitoring tool integrated with a BDI agent platform. We exemplify this using the Jason BDI agent interpreter by extending it with built-in actions to initiate and terminate monitoring of expectations. This delegation enables agents to monitor for the fulfilment and violation of their expectations without relying on a centralised monitoring mechanism. This way, it is possible for agents to have plans that respond to the identified fulfilments and violations of their expectations.

Keywords

Multiagent System Internal Action Cognitive Agent Agent Program Agent Platform 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20(2), 133–157 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P., Sartor, G.: Mapping deontic operators to abductive expectations. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 12, 205–225 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence 116(1-2), 123–191 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bordini, R.H., Hubner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Mind as an anticipatory device: For a theory of expectations. In: De Gregorio, M., Di Maio, V., Frucci, M., Musio, C. (eds.) BVAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3704, pp. 258–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelfranchi, C., Giardini, F., Lorini, E., Tummolini, L.: The prescriptive destiny of predictive attitudes: From expectations to norms via conventions. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 222–227 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M.: Verifying social expectations by model checking truncated paths. Journal of Logic and Computation 21(6), 1217–1256 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M., Vasconcelos, W.: Modelling and monitoring interdependent expectations. In: Proceeedings of the 12th International Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN), pp. 31–45 (2011), http://coin-aamas2011.iiia.csic.es/COIN_PreProceedings.pdf
  9. 9.
    Lorini, E., Falcone, R.: Modeling expectations in cognitive agents. In: Castelfranchi, C., Balkenius, C., Butz, M., Ortony, A. (eds.) AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium: From Reactive to Anticipatory Cognitive Embodied Systems, pp. 114–121. AAAI Press (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meneguzzi, F., Miles, S., Luck, M., Holt, C., Smith, M.: Electronic contracting in aircraft aftercare: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 63–70. IFAAMAS (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nickles, M., Rovatsos, M., Weiss, G.: Expectation-oriented modeling. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18, 891–918 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ranathunga, S., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: Interfacing a cognitive agent platform with a virtual world: a case study using Second Life. In: International Workshop on the Uses of Agents for Education, Games and Simulations (AEGS 2011), pp. 1–16 (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ranathunga, S., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: Identifying events taking place in Second Life virtual environments. Applied Artificial Intelligence 26, 137–181 (2012), doi:10.1080/08839514.2012.629559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao, A.: 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
  15. 15.
    Wallace, I., Rovatsos, M.: Bounded practical social reasoning in the ESB framework. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1097–1104. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wallace, I., Rovatsos, M.: Executing specifications of social reasoning agents. In: Omicini, A., Sardina, S., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6619, pp. 112–129. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Surangika Ranathunga
    • 1
  • Stephen Cranefield
    • 1
  • Martin Purvis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations