Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2/2017

11.12.2015

Aborting, suspending, and resuming goals and plans in BDI agents

verfasst von: James Harland, David N. Morley, John Thangarajah, Neil Yorke-Smith

Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Intelligent agents designed to work in complex, dynamic environments such as e-commerce must respond robustly and flexibly to environmental and circumstantial changes, including the actions of other agents. An agent must have the capability to deliberate about appropriate courses of action, which may include reprioritising tasks—whether goals or associated plans—aborting or suspending tasks, or scheduling tasks in a particular order. In this article we study mechanisms to enable principled suspend, resuming, and aborting of goals and plans within a Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agent architecture. We give a formal and combined operational semantics for these actions in an abstract agent language (CAN), thus providing a general mechanism that can be incorporated into several BDI-based agent platforms. The abilities enabled by our semantics provides an agent designer greater flexibility to direct agent operation, offering a generic means to manage the status of goals. We demonstrate the reasoning abilities enabled on a document workflow scenario.
Vorheriger Artikel Negotiating with other minds: the role of recursive theory of mind in negotiation with incomplete information
Nächster Artikel Interacting with team oriented plans in multi-robot systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
CALO was a multi-year research project from which Apple, Inc.’s Siri evolved.
 
2
If there is any difference between how to abort a goal that is externally performed versus how to abort one that is now known to be impossible, the abort-method can detect the circumstances and handle the situation as appropriate.
 
3
As we note below, the agent checks in-conditions for falsehood on a regular basis, not just on resumption.
 
4
According to the agent’s meta-decisions upon plan failure.
 
5
If the necessary resources cannot be obtained, the resume-method can fail, upon which by default the agent drops the goal. More elegantly, since we assume that resume-methods should always succeed, the method can indicate to the agent’s meta-reasoning to abort the goal.
 
6
An omitted c is equivalent to \({true}\).
 
7
Where it is obvious that e is an event we will sometimes exclude the exclamation mark for readability.
 
Literatur
1.
Amini, M., Wakolbinger, T., Racer, M., & Nejad, M. G. (2012). Alternative supply chain production-sales policies for new product diffusion: An agent-based modeling and simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 216(2), 301–311.CrossRef
2.
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., Patti, V., & Capuzzimati, F. (2014). Engineering commitment-based business protocols with the 2CL methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(4), 519–557.CrossRef
3.
Boella, G., & Damiano, R. (2008). A replanning algorithm for decision theoretic hierarchical planning: Principles and empirical evaluation. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 22(10), 937–963.CrossRef
4.
Bordini, R. H., & Hübner, J. F. (2010). Semantics for the Jason variant of AgentSpeak (plan failure and some internal actions). In Proceedings of ECAI’10, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 635–640).
5.
Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. New York: Wiley.CrossRefMATH
6.
Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Moldt, D., & Lamersdorf, W. (2004). Goal representation for BDI Agent systems. In Proceedings of 2nd international workshop on programming multi-agent systems (ProMAS’04), New York, NY (pp. 9–20).
7.
Burmeister, B., Arnold, M., Copaciu, F., & Rimassa, G. (2008). BDI-agents for agile goal-oriented business processes. In Proceedings of AAMAS’08 (Industry Track), Estoril, Portugal (pp. 37–44).
8.
Chessell, M. G., Vines, C., Butler, D., Ferreira, M., & Henderson, P. (2002). Extending the concept of transaction compensation. IBM Systems Journal, 41(4), 743–758.CrossRef
9.
da Costa Pereira, C., & Tettamanzi, A. (2010). Belief-goal relationships in possibilistic goal generation. In Proceedings of ECAI’10, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 641–646).
10.
Dai, B., & Chen, H. (2011). A multi-agent and auction-based framework and approach for carrier collaboration. Logistics Research, 3(2–3), 101–120.CrossRef
11.
Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M. B., & Winikoff, M. (2011). Rich goal types in agent programming. In Proceedings of AAMAS’11, Taipei, Taiwan (pp. 405–412).
12.
Dignum, F., Kinny, D., & Sonenberg, E. (2002). From desires, obligations and norms to goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2(3–4), 407–430.MATH
13.
Groves, W., Collins, J., Gini, M. L., & Ketter, W. (2014). Agent-assisted supply chain management: Analysis and lessons learned. Decision Support Systems, 57, 274–284.CrossRef
14.
Hang, C. W., & Singh, M. P. (2012). Generalized framework for personalized recommendations in agent networks. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 25(3), 475–498.CrossRef
15.
Harland, J., Morley, D. N., Thangarajah, J., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2014). An operational semantics for the goal life-cycle in BDI agents. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(4), 682–719.CrossRef
16.
Heath, B., Hill, R., & Ciarallo, F. (2009). A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), 9.
17.
Hindriks, K. V., de Boer, F. S., van der Hoek, W., & Meyer, J. J. C. (2000). Agent programming with declarative goals. In Proceedings of ATAL’00, LNCS 1986, Boston, MA (pp. 228–243).
18.
19.
Huntbach, M. M., & Ringwood, G. A. (1999). Agent-oriented programming: From prolog to guarded definite clauses. LNCS 1630. Berlin: Springer.
20.
Jarvis, D., Jarvis, J., Rönnquist, R., & Jain, L. C. (2013). Development using the GORITE BDI framework, multiagent systems and applications (Vol. 46). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRef
21.
Khan, S. M., & Lespérance, Y. (2010). A logical framework for prioritized goal change. In Proceedings of AAMAS’10, Toronto, Canada (pp. 283–290).
22.
Kinny, D. (2001). The Psi calculus: An algebraic agent language. In Proceedings of ATAL’01, Seattle, WA (pp. 32–50).
23.
Lorini, E., van Ditmarsch, H. P., & Lima, T. D. (2010). A logical model of intention and plan dynamics. In Proceedings of ECAI’10, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 1075–1076).
24.
Máhr, T., & de Weerdt, M. (2005). Distributed agent platform for advanced logistics. In Proceedings of AAMAS’05, Utrecht, The Netherlands (pp. 155–156).
25.
Mikic-Fonte, F. A., Burguillo-Rial, J. C., & Nistal, M. L. (2012). An intelligent tutoring module controlled by BDI agents for an e-learning platform. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(8), 7546–7554.CrossRef
26.
Morley, D., & Myers, K. (2004). The SPARK agent framework. In Proceedings of AAMAS’04, New York, NY (pp. 714–721).
27.
Morley, D., Myers, K. L., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2006). Continuous refinement of agent resource estimates. In Proceedings of AAMAS’06, Hakodate, Japan (pp. 858–865).
28.
Myers, K., Berry, P., Blythe, J., Conley, K., Gervasio, M., McGuinness, D., et al. (2007). An intelligent personal assistant for task and time management. AI Magazine, 28(2), 47–61.
29.
Myers, K. L., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2005). A cognitive framework for delegation to an assistive user agent. In Proceedings of AAAI 2005 fall symposium on mixed-initiative problem-solving assistants, Arlington, VA (pp. 94–99).
30.
Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., & Lamersdorf, W. (2005). A goal deliberation strategy for BDI agent systems. In Proceedings of the third German conference on Multi-Agent System TEchnologieS (MATES’05), Koblenz, Germany (pp. 82–94).
31.
Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., & Lamersdorf, W. (2005). Jadex: A BDI reasoning engine. In R. H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, & A. E. Fallah-Seghrouchni (Eds.), Multi-agent programming (pp. 149–174). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
32.
Pěchouček, M., & Mařík, V. (2008). Industrial deployment of multi-agent technologies: Review and selected case studies. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 17, 397–431.CrossRef
33.
Rao, A.S. (1996). AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In Proceedings of seventh European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world (MAAMAW’96), Eindhoven, The Netherlands (pp. 42–55).
34.
Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of KR’91, Cambridge, MA (pp. 473–484).
35.
Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1992). An abstract architecture for rational agents. In: Proceedings of KR’92, Cambridge, MA (pp. 439–449).
36.
van Riemsdijk, M. B., Dastani, M., & Winikoff, M. (2008). Goals in agent systems: A unifying framework. In Proceedings of AAMAS’08, Estoril, Portugal (pp. 713–720).
37.
Rönnquist, R. (2007). The goal oriented teams (GORITE) framework. In Proceedings of ProMAS’07, LNCS 4908, Honolulu, HI (pp. 27–41).
38.
Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2012). A multi-agent recommender system for supporting device adaptivity in e-commerce. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 38(2), 393–418.CrossRef
39.
Sardiña, S., & Padgham, L. (2007). Goals in the context of BDI plan failure and planning. In Proceedings of AAMAS’07, Honolulu, HI (pp. 16–23).
40.
Sardiña, S., & Padgham, L. (2011). A BDI agent programming language with failure handling, declarative goals, and planning. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 23(1), 18–70.CrossRef
41.
Sardiña, S., de Silva, L., & Padgham, L. (2006). Hierarchical planning in BDI agent programming languages: A formal approach. In Proceedings of AAMAS’06, Hakodate, Japan (pp. 1001–1008).
42.
Shaw, P. H., Farwer, B., & Bordini, R. H. (2008). Theoretical and experimental results on the goal-plan tree problem. In Proceedings of AAMAS’08, Estoril, Portugal (pp. 1379–1382).
43.
de Silva, L., Sardiña, S., & Padgham, L. (2009). First principles planning in BDI systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS’09, Budapest, Hungary (pp. 1105–1112).
44.
Sterling, L., & Shapiro, E. (1994). The Art of Prolog (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.MATH
45.
Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Morley, D., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2007). Aborting tasks in BDI agents. In Proceedings of AAMAS’07, Honolulu, HI (pp. 8–15).
46.
Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Morley, D., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2008). Suspending and resuming tasks in BDI agents. In Proceedings of AAMAS’08, Estoril, Portugal (pp. 405–412).
47.
Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Morley, D., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2010). On the life-cycle of BDI agent goals. In Proceedings of ECAI’10, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 1031–1032).
48.
Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Morley, D. N., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2014). Quantifying the completeness of goals in BDI agent. In Proceedings of ECAI’14, Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 879–884).
49.
Thangarajah, J., & Padgham, L. (2011). Computationally effective reasoning about goal interactions. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 47(1), 17–56.MathSciNetCrossRef
50.
Thangarajah, J., Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., & Fischer, K. (2002). Avoiding resource conflicts in intelligent agents. In Proceedings of ECAI-02, Lyon, France (pp. 18–22).
51.
Wellman, M. P., Greenwald, A., & Stone, P. (2007). Autonomous bidding agents: Strategies and lessons from the trading agent competition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
52.
Winikoff, M. (2005). JACK intelligent agents: An industrial strength platform. In Multi-Agent programming (pp. 175–193). New York: Springer.
53.
Winikoff, M. (2011). A formal framework for reasoning about goal interactions. In Proceedings of AAMAS’11, Taipei, Taiwan (pp. 1107–1108).
54.
Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., & Thangarajah, J. (2002). Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In Proceedings of KR’02, Toulouse, France (pp. 470–481).
55.
Yorke-Smith, N., Saadati, S., Myers, K., & Morley, D. (2012). The design of a proactive personal agent for task management. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 21(2), 90–119.
Metadaten
Titel
Aborting, suspending, and resuming goals and plans in BDI agents
verfasst von
James Harland
David N. Morley
John Thangarajah
Neil Yorke-Smith
Publikationsdatum
11.12.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1387-2532
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7454
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9322-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Negotiating with other minds: the role of recursive theory of mind in negotiation with incomplete information

OriginalPaper

Fitness function shaping in multiagent cooperative coevolutionary algorithms

OriginalPaper

Interacting with team oriented plans in multi-robot systems

OriginalPaper

Commitments and interaction norms in organisations

OriginalPaper

A novel abstraction for swarm intelligence: particle field optimization