Handbook of Knowledge Representation Edited Multi-agent Systems 24.1 Introduction

We review the state of the art in knowledge representation formalisms for multi-agent systems. We divide work in this area into two categories. In the first category are approaches that attempt to represent the cognitive state of rational agents, and to characterize logically how such a state leads a rational agent to act. We begin by motivating this approach. We then describe four of the best-known such logical frameworks, and discuss the possible roles that such logics can play in helping us to engineer artificial agents. In the second category are approaches based on representing the strategic structure of a multi-agent environment, and in particular, the powers that agents have, either individually or in coalitions. Here, we describe Coalition Logic, Alternating-time Temporal Logic (ATL), and epistemic extensions. The discipline of knowledge representation focuses on how to represent and reason about environments with various different properties, usually with the goal of making decisions, for example about how best to act in this environment. But what are the things that are actually doing this representation and reasoning? The now-conventional terminology is to refer to these entities as agents. The agents may be computer programs (in which case they are called software agents) or they may be people like you or I. The case where there is only assumed to be one agent in the environment (for example, a single autonomous robot operating in a warehouse) is usually the simplest scenario for knowledge representation, and often does not require techniques beyond those described elsewhere in this book. However, where there are multiple agents in the environment, things get much more interesting—and challenging. This is because it becomes necessary for an agent to represent and reason about the other agents in the environment. Again there are two possibilities. The first is that all the agents in the environment can be assumed to share a common purpose. This might be the case, for example, if we are designing a multi-robot system to operate in a warehouse environment. Here, we can assume the robots share a common purpose because we can design them that way. However, the second case is again much more interesting, and

[1]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Quantified coalition logic , 2007, Synthese.

[2]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  ATL Satisfiability is Indeed EXPTIME-complete , 2006, J. Log. Comput..

[3]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Temporal qualitative coalitional games , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[4]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Model Checking for Multiagent Systems: the Mable Language and its Applications , 2006, Int. J. Artif. Intell. Tools.

[5]  Tonya Lewis,et al.  Knowledge in Action , 1977 .

[6]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the dynamics of delegation, cooperation, and control: a logical account , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[7]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  A logic for strategic reasoning , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[8]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  On the logic of cooperation and propositional control , 2005, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Wojciech Jamroga,et al.  Agents that Know How to Play , 2004, Fundam. Informaticae.

[10]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  Logics for Epistemic Programs , 2004, Synthese.

[11]  Giacomo Bonanno,et al.  A Characterization of von Neumann Games in Terms of Memory , 2004, Synthese.

[12]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[13]  Gerard J. Holzmann,et al.  The SPIN Model Checker , 2003 .

[14]  M. Wooldridge,et al.  Model checking cooperation, knowledge, and time—a case study , 2003 .

[15]  Govert van Drimmelen,et al.  Satisfiability in Alternating-time Temporal Logic , 2003, LICS.

[16]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Tractable multiagent planning for epistemic goals , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[17]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Model Checking Knowledge and Time , 2002, SPIN.

[18]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Time, Knowledge, and Cooperation: Alternating-Time Temporal Epistemic Logic and Its Applications , 2002, KI.

[19]  Marc Pauly,et al.  A Modal Logic for Coalitional Power in Games , 2002, J. Log. Comput..

[20]  M. Pauly A Logical Framework for Coalitional Effectivity in Dynamic Procedures , 2001 .

[21]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  Agents and Roles: Refinement in Alternating-Time Temporal Logic , 2001, ATAL.

[22]  V. Goranko Coalition games and alternating temporal logics , 2001 .

[23]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Modal Logic , 2001, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science.

[24]  Moshe Y. Vardi Branching vs. Linear Time: Final Showdown , 2001, TACAS.

[25]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents , 2000, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

[26]  W. van der Hoek,et al.  Agent Programming with Declarative Goals , 2000, ATAL.

[27]  Jürgen Dix,et al.  Heterogeneous Agent Systems , 2000 .

[28]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  Agent Programming in 3APL , 1999, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[29]  Robert J. Aumann,et al.  Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge , 1999, Int. J. Game Theory.

[30]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  A Logical Approach to the Dynamics of Commitments , 1999, Artif. Intell..

[31]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Cooperative Problem-solving Process , 1999, J. Log. Comput..

[32]  Marcus J. Huber JAM: a BDI-theoretic mobile agent architecture , 1999, AGENTS '99.

[33]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  A Formal Embedding of AgentSpeak(L) in 3APL , 1998, Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

[34]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  MOCHA: Modularity in Model Checking , 1998, CAV.

[35]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Decision Procedures for BDI Logics , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[36]  John-Jules Ch. Meyer,et al.  Formalising Abilities and Opportunities of Agents , 1998, Fundam. Informaticae.

[37]  Jörg P. Müller,et al.  A Pragmatic BDI Architecture , 1997, ATAL.

[38]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI-Architecture , 1997, KR.

[39]  Thomas A. Henzinger,et al.  Alternating-time temporal logic , 1997, Proceedings 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[40]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  A Formal Specification of dMARS , 1997, ATAL.

[41]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Towards Flexible Teamwork , 1997, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[42]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  GOLOG: A Logic Programming Language for Dynamic Domains , 1997, J. Log. Program..

[43]  Wiebe van der Hoek,et al.  First steps in modal logic , 1997 .

[44]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Decision Procedures for Propositional Linear-Time Belief-Desire-Intention Logics , 1995, ATAL.

[45]  Daniel Marcu,et al.  Foundations of a Logical Approach to Agent Programming , 1995, ATAL.

[46]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[47]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Intelligent agents: theory and practice , 1995, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[48]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  A Situated View of Representation and Control , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[49]  Michael Fisher,et al.  A Survey of Concurrent METATEM - the Language and its Applications , 1994, ICTL.

[50]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification , 1994 .

[51]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  A Model-Theoretic Approach to the Verification of Situated Reasoning Systems , 1993, IJCAI.

[52]  Y. Shoham Agent-Oriented Programming , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[53]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Towards a Cooperation Knowledge Level For Collaborative Problem Solving , 1992, ECAI.

[54]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Asymmetry Thesis and Side-Effect Problems in Linear-Time and Branching-Time Intention Logics , 1991, IJCAI.

[55]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[56]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  On Acting Together , 1990, AAAI.

[57]  S. Brison The Intentional Stance , 1989 .

[58]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  METATEM: A Framework for Programming in Temporal Logic , 1989, REX Workshop.

[59]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  The Complexity of Reasoning about Knowledge and Time. I. Lower Bounds , 1989, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[60]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  On the synthesis of a reactive module , 1989, POPL '89.

[61]  David J. Israel,et al.  Plans and resource‐bounded practical reasoning , 1988, Comput. Intell..

[62]  Julia Galliers,et al.  A Strategic Framework for Multi-Agent Cooperative Dialogue , 1988, ECAI.

[63]  Leora Morgenstern,et al.  Knowledge Preconditions for Actions and Plans , 1988, IJCAI.

[64]  Mark A. Brown On the logic of ability , 1988, J. Philos. Log..

[65]  John McCarthy,et al.  SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ARTI CIAL INTELLIGENCE , 1987 .

[66]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[67]  Amy L. Lansky,et al.  Reactive Reasoning and Planning , 1987, AAAI.

[68]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  The Synthesis of Digital Machines With Provable Epistemic Properties , 1986, TARK.

[69]  Leora Morgenstern,et al.  A First Order Theory of Planning, Knowledge, and Action , 1986, TARK.

[70]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[71]  Robert C. Moore A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action , 1984 .

[72]  Robert C. Moore Reasoning About Knowledge and Action , 1977, IJCAI.

[73]  Richard Fikes,et al.  STRIPS: A New Approach to the Application of Theorem Proving to Problem Solving , 1971, IJCAI.

[74]  Jennifer Nacht,et al.  Modal Logic An Introduction , 2016 .

[75]  Lauretta O. Osho,et al.  Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming , 2013 .

[76]  C. Allen,et al.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 2011 .

[77]  Bernhard Beckert,et al.  Dynamic Logic , 2007, The KeY Approach.

[78]  W. Jamroga,et al.  Constructive Knowledge: What Agents Can Achieve under Incomplete Information , 2005 .

[79]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Logic for Mechanism Design A Manifesto , 2003 .

[80]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Rational interaction as the basis for communication , 2003 .

[81]  Wiebe van der Hoek,et al.  Formalizing Potential of Agents: The KARO Framework Revisited , 2000 .

[82]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Logic for social software , 2000 .

[83]  Jelle Gerbrandy,et al.  Dynamic epistemic logic , 1998 .

[84]  A. S. Roa,et al.  AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language , 1996 .

[85]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[86]  Zohar Manna,et al.  Temporal verification of reactive systems - safety , 1995 .

[87]  B. van Linder,et al.  Act ions That Make You Change Your Mind , 1994 .

[88]  James A. Hendler,et al.  Readings in Planning , 1994 .

[89]  M. Georgeff,et al.  Social Plans: A Preliminary Report , 1992 .

[90]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  The logical modelling of computational multi-agent systems , 1992 .

[91]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  An Abstract Architecture for Rational Agents , 1992, KR.

[92]  Wolfgang Thomas,et al.  Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Semantics , 1990 .

[93]  Frank van Harmelen,et al.  Truth and Modality for Knowledge Representation , 1990, AI Commun..

[94]  J. Galliers A theoretical framework for computer models of cooperative dialogue, acknowledging multiagent conflict , 1988 .

[95]  William F. Clocksin,et al.  Programming in Prolog , 1987, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[96]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  What is intention , 1987 .

[97]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  ON THE SEMANTICS OF STRIPS , 1987 .

[98]  K. Konolige A deduction model of belief , 1986 .

[99]  David Harel,et al.  First-Order Dynamic Logic , 1979, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.