Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz
Published in: KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 1/2017

18-10-2016 | Technical Contribution

BDI Logics for BDI Architectures: Old Problems, New Perspectives

Authors: Andreas Herzig, Emiliano Lorini, Laurent Perrussel, Zhanhao Xiao

Published in: KI - Künstliche Intelligenz | Issue 1/2017

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The mental attitudes of belief, desire, and intention play a central role in the design and implementation of autonomous agents. In 1987, Bratman proposed their integration into a belief–desire–intention (BDI) theory that was seminal in AI. Since then numerous approaches were built on the BDI paradigm, both practical (BDI architectures and BDI agents) and formal (BDI logics). The logical approaches that were most influential are due to Cohen and Levesque and to Rao and Georgeff. However, three fundamental problems remain up to now. First, the practical and the formal approaches evolved separately and neither fertilised the other. Second, only few formal approaches addressed some important issues such as the revision of intentions or the fundamentally paraconsistent nature of desires, and it seems fair to say that there is currently no consensical, comprehensive logical account of intentions. Finally, only few publications study the interaction between intention and other concepts that are naturally connected to intention, such as actions, planning, and the revision of beliefs and intentions. Our paper summarizes the state of the art, discusses the main open problems, and sketches how they can be addressed. We argue in particular that research on intention should be better connected to fields such as reasoning about actions, automated planning, and belief revision and update.
previous article Reasoning about Imprecise Beliefs in Multi-Agent Systems with PDT Logic
next article Decidability and Complexity of Fuzzy Description Logics

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

inform now

KI - Künstliche Intelligenz

The Scientific journal "KI – Künstliche Intelligenz" is the official journal of the division for artificial intelligence within the "Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V." (GI) – the German Informatics Society - with constributions from troughout the field of artificial intelligence.

inform now

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!

inform now
Show more products
Footnotes
2
The frame problem, one of the main and oldest problems in reasoning about actions, concerns the specification of the effects of actions [43]. The main challenge is to characterize these effects without explicitly specifying which conditions are not affected by executing actions.
 
3
They use the term goals.
 
4
Shoham mentioned that the belief could be any formula indexed by multiple time values, but does not elaborate this further. Such a generalization should come with more complex notation and new semantical and computational problems.
 
5
The time parameter \(t{-}1\) is missing in [36].
 
Literature
1.
Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2008) Reasoning about agent deliberation. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR)
2.
Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2011) Reasoning about plan revision in BDI agent programs. Theoret Comput Sci 412(44):6115–6134MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
3.
Alchourrón CE, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Log 50(02):510–530MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
4.
5.
6.
Bordini RH, Hübner JF (2010) Semantics for the Jason variant of AgentSpeak (plan failure and some internal actions). In: Proceedings of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), volume 215 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 635–640
7.
Bordini RH, Hübner JF, Wooldridge MJ (2007) Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason, volume 8 of Wiley Series in Agent Technology. Wiley, OxfordCrossRefMATH
8.
Bratman ME, Israel DJ, Pollack ME (1988) Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. J Comput Intell 4(3):349–355CrossRef
9.
10.
Bauters K, Liu W, Hong J, Sierra C, Godo L (2014) CAN(PLAN)+: extending the operational semantics of the BDI architecture to deal with uncertain information. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI), pp 52–61
11.
Bolander T (2014) Seeing is believing: formalising false-belief tasks in dynamic epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of the European conference on social intelligence (ECSI), volume 1283, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp 87–107
12.
Bratman ME (1987) Intention, plans, and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Reedited 1999 with CSLI Publications)
13.
14.
Bratman ME (2009) Intention, belief, and instrumental rationality. In: Sobel D, Wall S (eds) Reasons for action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 13–36CrossRef
15.
Baltag A, Smets S (2006) Conditional doxastic models: a qualitative approach to dynamic belief revision. Electron Notes Theoret Comput Scie 165:5–21MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
16.
Carnielli W, Coniglio ME, Marcos J (2007) Logics of formal inconsistency. Handbook of philosophical logic. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–93CrossRef
17.
Casali A, Godo L, Sierra C (2011) A graded BDI agent model to represent and reason about preferences. Artif Intell 175(7):1468–1478MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
18.
19.
Castelfranchi C, Paglieri F (2007) The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese 155(2):237–263MathSciNetCrossRef
20.
Dastani M, de Boer F, Dignum F, Meyer JJC (2003) Programming agent deliberation: an approach illustrated using the 3APL language. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 97–104. ACM
21.
Dunin-Keplicz B, Verbrugge R (2010) Teamwork in multi-agent systems: a formal approach. Wiley, OxfordCrossRefMATH
22.
d’Inverno M, Luck M, Georgeff MP, Kinny D, Wooldridge MJ (2004) The dMars architecture: a specification of the distributed multi-agent reasoning system. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 9(1–2):5–53CrossRef
23.
De Silva L, Padgham L (2005) A comparison of BDI based real-time reasoning and HTN based planning. AI 2004: advances in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 1167–1173
24.
De Silva L, Sardina S, Padgham L (2009) First principles planning in BDI systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 1105–1112
25.
Erol K, Hendler JA, Nau DS (1994) HTN planning: complexity and expressivity. In: Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), volume 94, pp 1123–1128
26.
27.
Giunchiglia F, Serafini L (1994) Multilanguage hierarchical logics, or: how we can do without modal logics. Artif Intell 65(1):29–70MathSciNetCrossRefMATH
28.
Harman G (1976) Practical reasoning. Rev Metaphys 29(3):431–463
29.
Hustadt U, Dixon C, Schmidt RA, Fisher M, Meyer JJC, van der Hoek W (2001) Reasoning about agents in the KARO framework. In: Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on temporal representation and reasoning, (TIME)
30.
Herzig A, Longin D (2004) C&L intention revisited. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). AAAI Press, pp 527–535
31.
Hunsberger L, Ortiz CL (2008) Dynamic intention structures I: a theory of intention representation. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 16(3):298–326CrossRef
32.
Herzig A, Perrussel L, Xiao Z (2016) On hierarchical task networks. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA). Springer
33.
Herzig A, Perrussel L, Xiao Z, Zhang D (2016) Refinement of intentions. In: Proceedings of the 15th European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA). Springer
34.
Hindriks KV, van der Hoek W, Meyer JJC (2012) GOAL agents instantiate intention logic. Logic programs, norms and action, volume 7360 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 196–219
35.
Ingrand FF, Georgeff MP, Rao AS (1992) An architecture for real-time reasoning and system control. IEEE Expert 7(6):34–44CrossRef
36.
Icard T, Pacuit E, Shoham Y (2010) Joint revision of belief and intention. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR), pp 572–574
37.
Kominis F, Geffner H (2015) Beliefs in multiagent planning: from one agent to many. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI Press, pp 147–155
38.
Kambhampati S, Mali A, Srivastava B (1998) Hybrid planning for partially hierarchical domains. In: Proceedings of the 15th national conference on artificial intelligence and 10th innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (AAAIl/IAAI), pp 882–888
39.
40.
Lakemeyer G, Lespérance Y (2012) Efficient reasoning in multiagent epistemic logics. In: Proceedings of the 20th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), pp 498–503
41.
42.
Meyer JJC, de Boer FS, van Eijk RM, Hindriks KV, van der Hoek W (2001) On programming KARO agents. Log J IGPL 9(2):245–256CrossRefMATH
43.
McCarthy J, Hayes PJ (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine intelligence, 4th edn. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 463–502
44.
Ma J, Liu W, Hong J, Godo L, Sierra C (2014) Plan selection for probabilistic BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI), pp 83–90
45.
Miller T, Muise CJ (2016) Belief update for proper epistemic knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the 25th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 1209–1215
46.
Petrick RPA, Bacchus F (2004) Extending the knowledge-based approach to planning with incomplete information and sensing. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS), pp 2–11
47.
Reiter R (2001) Knowledge in action: logical foundations for specifying and implementing dynamical systems. The MIT Press, CambridgeMATH
48.
Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1991) Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 473–484
49.
Sadek MD (1992) A study in the logic of intention. In: Proceeedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR), pp 462–473
50.
Sardina S, de Silva L, Padgham L (2006) Hierarchical planning in BDI agent programming languages: a formal approach. In: Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 1001–1008
51.
Searle JR (1990) Collective intentions and actions. Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 401–415
52.
53.
Shoham Y (2016) Why knowledge representation matters. Commun ACM 59(1):47–49CrossRef
54.
Singh MP (1992) A critical examination of use cohen-levesque theory of intentions. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), pp 364–368
55.
Scherl R, Levesque HJ (1993) The frame problem and knowledge producing actions. In: Proceedings of the 11th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, pp 689–695
56.
Sardina S, Lespérance Y (2010) Golog speaks the BDI language. In: Programming multi-agent systems—7th international workshop, ProMAS 2009. Revised selected papers, volume 5919 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, pp 82–99
57.
Shoham Y, Leyton-Brown K (2008) Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATH
58.
Shapiro S, Sardina S, Thangarajah J, Cavedon L, Padgham L (2012) Revising conflicting intention sets in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, pp 1081–1088
59.
Strzalecki T (2014) Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs. J Econ Behav Org 108:108–122CrossRef
60.
Schut MC, Wooldridge MJ, Parsons S (2004) The theory and practice of intention reconsideration. J Exp Theoret Artif Intell 16(4):261–293CrossRef
61.
62.
63.
64.
van Ditmarsch HP, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (2007) Dynamic epistemic logic. kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefMATH
65.
Velleman JD (1989) Practical reflection. Princeton University Press, Princeton
66.
van Zee M, Doder D (2016) AGM-style revision of beliefs and intentions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI), volume 285 of frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. IOS Press, pp 1511–1519
67.
van Zee M, Dastani M, Doder D, van der Torre L (2015) Consistency conditions for beliefs and intentions. In: Proceedings of the 12th international symposium on logical formalizations of commonsense reasoning, pp 152–158
68.
van Zee M, Doder D, Dastani M, van der Torre L (2015) AGM revision of beliefs about action and time. In: Proceedings of the 24th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 3250–3256
69.
Winikoff M, Padgham L, Harland J, Thangarajah J (2002) Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR), pp 470–481
70.
Waters M, Padgham L, Sardina S (2015) Improving domain-independent intention selection in BDI systems. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 29(4):683–717CrossRef
71.
Metadata
Title
BDI Logics for BDI Architectures: Old Problems, New Perspectives
Authors
Andreas Herzig
Emiliano Lorini
Laurent Perrussel
Zhanhao Xiao
Publication date
18-10-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
KI - Künstliche Intelligenz / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0933-1875
Electronic ISSN: 1610-1987
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-016-0457-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 1/2017 Go to the issue

Editorial

Editorial

Research Project

The Tweety Library Collection for Logical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Representation

Editorial

Special Issue on Challenges for Reasoning under Uncertainty, Inconsistency, Vagueness, and Preferences

Doctoral and Postdoctoral Dissertations

Quantitative Methods for Similarity in Description Logics

Research Project

DFG Research Unit (Forschergruppe) FOR 1513 Hybrid Reasoning for Intelligent Systems

Survey

Many Facets of Reasoning Under Uncertainty, Inconsistency, Vagueness, and Preferences: A Brief Survey

Premium Partner

    Image Credits