Quantifying the Completeness of Goals in BDI Agent Systems

Given the current set of intentions an autonomous agent may have, intention selection is the agent's decision which intention it should focus on next. Often, in the presence of conflicts, the agent has to choose between multiple intentions. One factor that may play a role in this deliberation is the level of completeness of the intentions. To that end, this paper provides pragmatic but principled mechanisms for quantifying the level of completeness of goals in a BDI-style agent. Our approach leverages previous work on resource and effects summarization but we go beyond by accommodating both dynamic resource summaries and goal effects, while also allowing a non-binary quantification of goal completeness. We demonstrate the computational approach on an autonomous robot case study.

[1]  Subbarao Kambhampati,et al.  Planning with Goal Utility Dependencies , 2007, IJCAI.

[2]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  JACKTM Intelligent Agents: An Industrial Strength Platform , 2005, Multi-Agent Programming.

[3]  Yan Zhang,et al.  Partial goal satisfaction and goal change: weak and strong partial implication, logical properties, complexity , 2008, AAMAS.

[4]  Lin Padgham,et al.  Computationally Effective Reasoning About Goal Interactions , 2011, Journal of Automated Reasoning.

[5]  M. Birna van Riemsdijk,et al.  Towards Reasoning with Partial Goal Satisfaction in Intelligent Agents , 2010, ProMAS.

[6]  Victor R. Lesser.  Evolution of the GPGP/TÆMS domain-independent coordination framework , 2002, AAMAS.

[7]  Luke Hunsberger,et al.  The dynamics of intention in collaborative activity , 2006, Cognitive Systems Research.

[8]  M. Georgeff,et al.  Rational software agents: from theory to practice , 1998 .

[9]  Yi Zhou,et al.  Partial Implication Semantics for Desirable Propositions , 2004, KR.

[10]  Karen L. Myers,et al.  Continuous refinement of agent resource estimates , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[11]  John Thangarajah,et al.  A Soft COP Model for Goal Deliberation in a BDI Agent , 2007 .

[12]  David E. Smith.  Choosing Objectives in Over-Subscription Planning , 2004, ICAPS.

[13]  John Thangarajah,et al.  Towards quantifying the completeness of BDI goals , 2014, AAMAS.

[14]  Yves Lespérance,et al.  A logical framework for prioritized goal change , 2010, AAMAS.

[15]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Incorporating helpful behavior into collaborative planning , 2009, AAMAS.

[16]  James Harland,et al.  MAINTENANCE GOALS IN INTELLIGENT AGENTS , 2014, Comput. Intell..

[17]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Abstract Reasoning for Planning and Coordination , 2002, SARA.

[18]  Richard Holton,et al.  Partial Belief, Partial Intention , 2008 .

[19]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  Exploring Heuristic Action Selection in Agent Programming , 2009, ProMAS.

[20]  Karen L. Myers,et al.  The SPARK agent framework , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[21]  Lin Padgham,et al.  A BDI agent programming language with failure handling, declarative goals, and planning , 2011, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[22]  Michael Winikoff,et al.  Avoiding Resource Conflicts in Intelligent Agents , 2002, ECAI.

[23]  Zhisheng Huang,et al.  Dynamic Goal Hierarchies , 1996, PRICAI Workshop on Intelligent Agent Systems.

[24]  Ralph Rönnquist,et al.  The Goal Oriented Teams (GORITE) Framework , 2007, PROMAS.

[25]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Representations for Decision-Theoretic Planning: Utility Functions for Deadline Goals , 1992, KR.