Jan Broersen
Leendert van der Torre
ABSTRACT
In this paper we introduce the so-called Beliefs-Obligations-Intentions-Desires or BOID architecture. It contains feedback loops to consider all effects of actions before committing to them, and mechanisms to resolve conflicts between the outputs of its four components. Agent types such as realistic or social agents correspond to specific types of conflict resolution embedded in the BOID archecture.
- 1.C. Alchourron, P. Gardenfors, and D. Makinson. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510-530, 1985.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 2.J. Bell and Z. Huang. Dynamic goal hierarchies. In A. R. L. Cavedon and W. Wobcke, editors, Intelligent Agent Systems, Theoretical and Practical Issues, LNAI 1209, pages 88-103. Springer, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.C. Boutilier. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory. InProceedings of the KR'94, pages 75-86, 1994.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 4.M. E. Bratman. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 1987.Google Scholar
- 5.J. Broersen, M. Dastani, and L. van der Torre. Wishful thinking. In Proceedings of DGNMR'01, 2001.Google Scholar
- 6.C. Castelfranci, F. Dignum, C. Jonker, and J. Treur. Deliberative normative agents: principles and architecture. In Proceedings of the ATAL'99, LNCS, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7.P. Cohen and H. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213-261, 1990. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8.M. Dastani, Z. Huang, and L. van der Torre. Dynamic desires. In Proceedings of ICMAS2000 Workshop on game-theoretic and decision-theoretic approaches to agency (GTDT'00), 2000.Google Scholar
- 9.M. Dastani, J. Hulstijn, and L. van der Torre. BDI and QDT: a comparison based on classical decision theory. InProceedings of AAAI Spring Symposium GTDT'01, 2000.Google Scholar
- 10.F. Dignum. Autonomous agents and norms. Artificial Intelligence andLaw, 7:69-79, 1999.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11.F. Dignum, D. Morley, E. Sonenberg, and L. Cavedon. Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In Proceedings of the ICMAS 2000, pages 111-118, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12.T. Eiter, V. Subrahmanian, and G. Pick. Heterogeneous active agents I: Semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 108 (1-2):179-255, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13.C. L. Forgy. Rete: A fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Artificial Inteligence, 19:17-37, 1982.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14.Jones and Sergot. On the characterisation of law and computer systems: The normative systems perspective. In Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, 1993. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 15.J. Pearl. From conditional oughts to qualitative decision theory. InProceedings of the UAI'93, pages 12-20, 1993.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 16.A. Rao and M. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture. In Proceedings of the KR91, 1991.Google Scholar
- 17.A. Rao and M. Georgeff. An abstract architecture for rational agents. In Proceedings of the KR92, 1992.Google Scholar
- 18.A. Rao and M. Georgeff. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS'95), 1995.Google Scholar
- 19.R. Reiter. A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81-132, 1980.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20.R. Reiter. A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence, 32:57-95, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21.R. Thomason. Desires and defaults. In Proceedings of the KR'2000. Morgan Kaufmann, 2000.Google Scholar
- 22.van der Torre and Tan. Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 27:49-78, 1999. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23.L. van der Torre and Y. Tan. Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7:51-67, 1999.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24.G. von Wright. Practical Reason. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1983.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires
Recommendations
Programming BOID-Plan Agents: Deliberating about Conflicts among Defeasible Mental Attitudes and Plans
AAMAS '04: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2In this paper we present an abstract agent programming language and its operational semantics which can be used to implement cognitive agents. This language consists of programming constructs to implement both the agent's mental attitudes - interpreted ...
BOID*: Autonomous Goal Deliberation through Abduction
AAMAS '22: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent SystemsThe original BOID [5] is a cognitive architecture that unifies Belief, Obligation, Intention and Desire rules to calculate which actions should an agent undertake next. In the current paper, we adapt the original BOID with an aim to model autonomous ...
Two extensions of heterogeneous boid model to avoid metastable patterns
AbstractA boid is a simple multiagent model of animal group behavior. Boid agents communicate locally. I studied a heterogeneous boid model comprised of many agents that are divided into several types. While varying interaction among types of agents, this ...
Comments