Emergency HTN Planning

  • Hisashi HayashiEmail author
  • Seiji Tokura
  • Fumio Ozaki
  • Tetsuo Hasegawa
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 52)


Integration of deliberation and reaction has been an important research topic concerning agents in view of the need for an agent to react tentatively and immediately to the changing world when unexpected events occur while executing a plan. An agent is not supposed to think for a long time before reacting. Also, its reaction is not supposed to change the world greatly. However, there are some cases where deliberation is necessary for achieving an emergency goal or where the emergency plan execution prevents the resumption of the suspended plan execution. This chapter presents a new concept of on-line interruption planning that integrates deliberation and emergency deliberation. When an emergency goal is given while executing a plan, our agents suspend the current plan execution, make and execute an emergency plan, and resume the suspended plan execution. Because our agents continuously modify the suspended plans while executing an emergency plan, they can resume the suspended plans correctly and efficiently even if the world has changed greatly due to the emergency plan execution.


Agent Intelligent agent Planning Emergency planning Interruption planning Deliberation and reaction Robotics Intelligent robotics 


  1. 1.
    Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., & Lamersdorf, W. (2005). Jadex: A BDI-agent system combining middleware and reasoning. In Software agent-based applications, platforms and development kits (pp. 143–168). Birkha̋user Book.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooks, R. (1986). A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 2(1), 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Currie, K., & Tate, A. (1991). O-plan: The open planning architecture. Artificial Intelligence, 52(1), 49–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, B., Dignum, F., & Meyer, J-J. (2003). A programming language for cognitive agents: Goal directed 3APL. Proceedings of international workshop on programming multiagent systemslanguages, frameworks, techniques and tools (ProMAS03) (pp. 111–130).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    desJardins, M., Durfee, E., Ortiz, C., & Wolverton, M. (1999). A survey of research in distributed, continual planning. AI Magazine, 20(4), 13–22.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Georgeff, M., & Ingrand, F. (1989). Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI89) (pp. 972–978).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haigh, K., & Veloso, M. (1998). Interleaving planning and robot execution for asynchronous user requests. Autonomous Robots, 5(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hayashi, H., Tokura, S., Hasegawa, T., & Ozaki, F. (2006). Dynagent: An incremental forward-chaining HTN planning agent in dynamic domains. In The post-proceedings of the international workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT05), LNAI 3904 (pp. 171–187). Springer, Germany.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hayashi, H., Tokura, S., & Ozaki, F. (2009). Towards real-world HTN planning agents, volume 170 of Studies in Computational Intelligence, Chapter 2 (pp. 13–41). Springer, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howden, N., Rőnnquist, R., Hodgson, A., & Lucas, A. (2001). JACK: Intelligent agents – summary of an agent infrastructure. In Proceedings of the international workshop on infrastructure for agents, MAS, and scalable MAS (IAMSMAS01).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kowalski, R., & Sadri, F. (1999). From logic programming towards multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 25, 391–419.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morley, D., & Myers, K. (2004). The SPARK agent framework. In the international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS04) (pp. 712–719).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nau, D., Cao, Y., Lotem, A., and Mũnoz-Avila, H. (1999). SHOP: simple hierarchical ordered planner. In the proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI99) (pp. 968–975).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao, A. (1996). AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In the European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world (MAAMAW96) (pp. 42–55).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sacerdoti, E. (1977). A Structure for plans and behavior. American Elsevier, USA.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tate, A. (1977). Generating project networks. In Proceedings of the international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI77) (pp. 888–893).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wilkins, D. (1988). Practical planning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilkins, D., & desJardins, M. (2001). A call for knowledge-based planning. AI Magazine, 22(1), 99–115.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yan, S.-B., Lin, Z.-N., Hsu, H.-J., & Wang, F.-J. (2005). Intention scheduling for BDI agent systems. In Proceedings of the annual international computer software and applications conference (COMPSAC05) (pp. 133–140).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hisashi Hayashi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seiji Tokura
    • 1
  • Fumio Ozaki
    • 1
  • Tetsuo Hasegawa
    • 2
  1. 1.Corporate Research and Development Center, Toshiba CorporationKawasakiJapan
  2. 2.Corporate Software Engineering Center, Toshiba CorporationKawasakiJapan

Personalised recommendations