Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introspective and elaborative processes in rational agents

  • Published:
Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores the design of rational agent architectures from the perspective of the dynamics of information change. The procedural elements that guide an agent's behavior and that reflect the evolution of pro-attitudes (for example, from desire to intention to plan) are described in terms of McCarthy's notion of a reified mental action. The function of each module of an agent architecture is exactly specified by identifying processes with each module and then describing the effects of those processes or mental actions (such as updating beliefs, elaborating plans, deliberating, reconsidering, revising intentions, filtering intentions, and monitoring) in the same way as one would describe the effects of physical actions. A new semantics for intention is presented that is both dynamic and causal in the sense that it is given in terms of the relation of an intention to both previous and subsequent mental states as well as to the choice of physical action. Desires are given a syntactic analysis while the pro-attitude of intentions-that, which has been proposed in the SharedPlans framework of Grosz and Kraus, is axiomatized in terms of an evolving commitment to certain deliberative, mental actions that evolve as a function of knowledge of the state of the joint activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. C.T. Balkanski, Modeling act-type relations in collaborative activity, Technical Report, Harvard University (1990).

  2. J. Bennett, Events and Their Names (Hackett Publishing Company, 1988).

  3. M. Bratman, Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason (Harvard University Press, 1987).

  4. M.E. Bratman, D.J. Israel and M.E. Pollack, Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning, Computational Intelligence 4 (1988) 349-355.

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Bretier and M.D. Sadek, A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: Implementing a logical theory of interation, in: ECAI-96 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (1996).

  6. B.F. Chellas, Modal Logic: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. Cohen and H. Levesque, Intention is choice with commitment, Artificial Intelligence 42 (1990) 213-261.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. M.R. Genesereth and N.J. Nilsson, Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. B.J. Grosz and S. Kraus, Collaborative plans for complex group action, Artificial Intelligence 86(1) (1996) 269-357.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. B.J. Grosz and S. Kraus, The evolution of SharedPlans, in: Foundations and Theories of Rational Agency, eds. A. Rao and M. Wooldridge (1998).

  11. M. Hadad, Using sharedplan model in electronic commerce environment, Technical Report, Bar Ilan University, Master's thesis (1997).

  12. A. Haddadi and K. Sundermeyer, Belief-desire-intention agent architectures, in: Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, eds. G.M.P. O'Hare and N.R. Jennings (Wiley, New York, 1996) pp. 169-186.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J.Y. Halpern and Y. Moses, A guide to the modal logics of knowledge and belief: a preliminary report, Technical Report, IBM Research Laboratory (1985).

  14. L. Hunsberger, Making sharedplans more concise and easier to reason about, Technical Report, Harvard University (1997).

  15. D. Israel, J. Perry and S. Tutiya, Actions and movements, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1991) pp. 1060-1065.

  16. H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon, On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, in: Belif Revision, ed. P. Gärdenfors (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992) pp. 183-203.

    Google Scholar 

  17. K. Konolige and M.E. Pollack, A representationalist theory of intention, in: Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1993) pp. 390-395.

  18. R. Kowalski, Logic for Problem Solving (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  19. S.C. Levinson, Pragmatics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. McCarthy, Making robots conscious of their mental states, in: Proceedings of the 1995 Workshop on Machine Intelligence (Oxford University).

  21. C.L. Ortiz, Worlds of change: counterfactual reasoning and causation, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Department of Computer and Information Science (1996).

  22. C.L. Ortiz, A commonsense language for reasoning about causation and action, AI Journal, to appear.

  23. C.L. Ortiz, Explanatory update theory: Applications of counterfactual reasoning to causation, AI Journal 108(1–2) (1999) 125-178.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. H. Pasula, Design of a collaborative planning system, Technical Report, Harvard University, Senior Honors thesis (1996).

  25. M. Pollack, Inferring domain plans in question-answering, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (1986).

  26. M. Pollack, Overloading intentions for efficient practical reasoning, Nous 25 (1991) 513-536.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A.D. Rao, AgentSpeak(L): BDI Agents Speak Out in a Logical Computable Language, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1038 (Springer, Berlin, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  28. A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff, BDI Agents: From theory to practice, in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-agent Systems (1995).

  29. K. Segerberg, Bringing it about, Journal of Philosophical Logic 18 (1989) 327-347.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. M. Shanahan, A circumscriptive calculus of events, Artificial Intelligence 77 (1995) 249-284.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Y. Shoham, Agent-oriented programming, Technical Report STAN-CS-90-1335, Stanford University, Computer Science Department (1990).

  32. J. van Eijck and A. Visser, eds., Logic and Information Flow (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  33. M. Winslett, Reasoning about actions using a possible models approach, in: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1988) pp. 89-93.

  34. M. Wooldridge, Temporal belief logics for modeling distributed artificial intelligence systems, in: Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, eds. G.M.P. O'Hare and N.R. Jennings (Wiley, New York, 1996) pp. 269-286.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Charles L. Ortiz Jr.

Authors
  1. Charles L. Ortiz Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ortiz, C.L. Introspective and elaborative processes in rational agents. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 25, 1–34 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018961502002

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018961502002

Keywords

Search

Navigation