Abstract
Intentional agent systems are increasingly being used in a wide range of complex applications. Capabilities has recently been introduced into some of these systems as a software engineering mechanism to support modularity and reusability while still allowing meta-level reasoning. This paper presents possible formalisations of capabilities within the framework of beliefs, goals and intentions and indicates how capabilities can affect agent reasoning about its intentions. We define a style of agent commitment which we refer to as a self-aware agent which allows an agent to modify its goals and intentions as its capabilities change. We also indicate which aspects of the specification of a BDI interpreter are affected by the introduction of capabilities and give some indications of additional reasoning which could be incorporated into an agent system on the basis of both the theoretical analysis and the existing implementation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
J. M. Bradshaw, S. Dutfield, P. Benoit, and J. D. Woolley, ‘‘KAOS: Toward an industrial-strength open agent Architecture,’’ in J. M. Bradshaw (ed.), Software Agents, AAAI Press, 1997, pp. 375–418.
M. E. Bratman D. J. Israel M. E. Pollack (1988) ArticleTitle‘‘Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning’‘ Comput. Intell. 4 IssueID4 349–355
P. Busetta, N. Howden, R. Rönnquist, and A. Hodgson, ‘‘Structuring BDI agents in functional clusters’’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 99), 1999a. pp. 277–289.
P. Busetta, R. Rönnquist, A. Hodgson, and A. Lucas, ‘‘Jack intelligent agents–components for intelligent agents in Java’’, in Agent Link News Letter, pp. 2–5, January 1999b.
P. Cohen H. Levesque (1990) ArticleTitle‘‘Intention is choice with commitment’‘ Artif. Intell. 42 213–261
C. P. Cross (1986) ArticleTitle‘‘ ‘Can’ and the Logic of Ability’‘ Philosophical Studies 50 53–64
P. M. Dung, ‘‘A formal methodology for verifying situated agents’’, in Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence - AAAI 98, 1998, pp. 637–642.
M. Georgeff and F. Ingrand, ‘‘Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system’’, in Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 89), August 1989, pp. 972–978.
M. Huber, ‘‘Jam: A BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture’’, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 99), Seattle, WA, 1999, pp. 236–243.
J. Lee, M. Huber, P. G. Kenny, and E. H. Durfee, ‘‘UM-PRS: An implementation of the procedural reasoning system for multi-robot applications’’, in Proceedings of the Conference on Intelligent Robotics in Field, Factory, Service and Space (CIRFFSS 94), Houston, TX, 1994, pp. 842–849.
Y. Lesperance H. Levesque F. Lin R. Scherl (2000) ArticleTitle‘‘Ability and knowing how in the situation calculus’‘ Stud. Log. 66 IssueID1 165–186
F. Lin H. Levesque (1998) ArticleTitle‘‘What robots can do: robot programs and effective achievability’‘ Artif. Intell. 101 201–226
M. Lind, ‘‘Possibilities for action’’, Center for Human-Machine Interaction, report CHMI-7-2000, 2000.
S. McCall (1970) ‘‘Ability as a species of possibility’‘ M. Brand (Eds) Nature of Human Action Foresman and Company Glenview, Scott
J. J. Meyer W. van der Hoek B. van Linder (1999) ArticleTitle‘‘A logical approach to the dynamics of commitments’‘ Artif. Intell. 113 1–40
R. C. Moore (1985) ‘‘A formal theory of knowledge and action’‘ J. C. Hobbs R. C. Moore (Eds) Formal Theories of the Commonsense World Ablex Norwood, NJ 319–358
L. Padgham and P. Lambrix, ‘‘Agent capabilities: Extending BDI theory’’, in Proceedings of Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), Austin, TX, 2000, pp. 68–73.
A. Rao and M. Georgeff, ‘‘Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture’’, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference (KR 91), 1991, pp. 473–484.
A. Rao and M. Georgeff, ‘‘An abstract architecture for rational agents’’, in Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Third International Conference (KR 92), 1992, pp. 439–449.
A. Rao and M. Georgeff, ‘‘BDI agents: From theory to practice’’, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 95), San Francisco, USA, 1995. pp. 312–319.
S. Shapiro, Y. Lesperance, and H.J. Levesque, ‘‘Goals and Rational Action in the Situation Calculus – A Preliminary Report,’’ in Notes of the AAAI Fall Symposium on Rational Agency: Concepts, Theories, Models, and Applications, pp. 117–122, 1995.
Y. Shoham (1993) ArticleTitle‘‘Agent oriented programming’‘ Artif. Intell. 60 51–92
M. P. Singh, ‘‘Know-How,’’ in A. S. Rao and M. J. Wooldridge (eds.), Foundations of Rational Agency, Applied Logic Series, Kluwer, 1999, pp. 105–132.
K. Sycara M. Klusch S. Widoff J. Lu (1999) ArticleTitle‘‘Dynamic service matchmaking among agents in open information environments’‘ SIGMOD Record 28 IssueID1 47–53
J. Thangarajah, L. Padgham, and J. Harland, ‘‘Representation and reasoning for goals in BDI agents’’, Australasian Computer Science Conference, 2002. pp. 259–245.
B. van Linder W. van der Hoek J. J. Meyer (1998) ArticleTitle‘‘Formalizing abilities and opportunities of agents’‘ Fundam. Inform. vol. 34 53–101
M. Wooldridge (2000) ‘‘Reasoning About Rational Agents’‘ The MIT Press Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Padgham, L., Lambrix, P. Formalisations of Capabilities for BDI-Agents. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 10, 249–271 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-004-4345-2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-004-4345-2