N. R. Jennings, Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-JointIntention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving, Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2 (3) (1993) 289--318.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....[KG 97] PS97] However, much of this research has tended to focus upon the word mobile rather than the word agent [Mil99] This paper redresses the balance by combining traditional agents research and mobile agents research to present a new smarter breed of mobile agent. BDI agents [RG91] [Jen93] [OJ96] are complex deliberative reasoning systems. Generally, they are considered heavyweight software entities. This paper presents a view of BDI agents, based upon Shohams Agent Oriented Programming (AOP) Paradigm [Sho93] that are lightweight software entities, which may easily be transmitted ....

.... attempt at constructing such models have come from the application of a mental state comprising a set of mental attitudes such as beliefs, obligations, goals,andcommitments [Mc79] Within this field, a consensus mental state has emerged, the Belief Desire intention (BDI) architecture [RG91] [Jen93] [OJ96] In this terminology, an agent can be identified as having: a set of beliefs about its environment and about itself; a set of desires which are computational states which it wants to maintain, and a set of intentions which are computational states which the agent is trying to achieve. 4.2 ....

Jennings, N.R., Specification and implementation of a Belief-Desire joint intention architecture for collaborative problem solving, in Int. Jour. of Intel. and Co-op. Info. Sys. Vol. II no3, 1993.

....coordinated. For example, it will be somewhat unrealistic to claim that there is any real teamwork involved in ordinary automobile traffic, even though the drivers act simultaneously and are coordinated by traffic signs. Secondly, there is a fundamental difference between individuals and groups [10]. Therefore, some new abstract concept model is needed to describe and examine the joint social behaviors in multi agent system. Joint intention is an important abstract concept in distributed artificial intelligence to examine the social behaviors among agents in multi agent system. It exhibits ....

....and examine the joint social behaviors in multi agent system. Joint intention is an important abstract concept in distributed artificial intelligence to examine the social behaviors among agents in multi agent system. It exhibits the common task and goal that multi agent intend to jointly achieve [2,3,4,10]. In multiagent system, the purposes of joint social behaviors among agents are not only to achieve some collective tasks, but also to maintain the system condition. For instance, there are two robot agents in some environment, which are assigned the task to move objects from one place to another ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

N.R.Jennings. Specification and implementation of belief-desire-joint intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3)(1993)289~318.

.... 55] and described in the previous subsection, that involves routers (that operate on message layers) facilitators (that translate message layers into communication layers and vice versa) and router interface libraries (that translate content layers into message layers and vice versa) Jennings [77] proposes a formal logic framework that specifies the role of individual and joint intentions in cooperative problem solving. The framework allows to formally describe both the phase of establishing cooperation upon joint intentions and the phase of monitoring the execution of actions derived from ....

....and variables. The interpreter of the language performs iteratively two main steps: updating the mental states of agents (namely, reading messages sent to agents) and executing the commitments (that bring to a new modification of mental states) Jennings illustrates an environment, called GRATE [77], that allows to naturally implement architectures of agents that have been formally described by means of formalisms representing mental states of agents (such as the one recalled in previous subsection that expresses joint intentions of agents) The University of Michigan Procedural Reasoning ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief-desirejoint -intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289-- 318, 1993.

....for the international evaluation of approaches that aim at agent deliberation in such real time dynamic domains. The Belief Desire Intention (BDI) architecture founded on Cognitive Science (refer e.g. to [1] has been applied to deliberation in Artificial Intelligence by several researchers (e.g. [3, 8, 14]) It claims to be highly suitable for domains This research has been partially supported by the German Research Society, BerlinBrandenburg Graduate School in Distributed Information Systems (DFG grant no. GRK 316) that are characterized by a non deterministic environment, competing ....

Jennings, N. R.: Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-Joint-Intention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving. Int. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2(3): 289-318. 1993.

....agents, based on the BDI model. IRMA agents consist of four main modules: a means end planner, an opportunity analyser, a filtering process and a deliberation procedure. In addition, they contain a plan library, and data structures to store beliefs, desires and intentions. Jennings in [10] proposes GRATE, an architecture clearly focused on co operative problem solving through agent collaboration. Central to the entire architecture is the notion of joint intentions. In fact, even though GRATE is a deliberative architecture based on the BDI model, it is specifically referred to as a ....

Jennings, N. R.: Specification and implementation of a belief desire joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems (1993) 289-318

....agents, based on the BDI model. IRMA agents consist of four main modules: a means end planner, an opportunity analyser, a filtering process and a deliberation procedure. In addition, they contain a plan library, and data structures to store beliefs, desires and intentions. Jennings in [9] proposes GRATE, an architecture clearly focused on co operative problem solving through agent collaboration. Central to the entire architecture is the notion of joint intentions. In fact, even though GRATE is a deliberative architecture based on the BDI model, it is specifically referred to as a ....

Jennings, N. R.: Specification and implementation of a belief desire joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems (1993) 289-318

....of the Z language, the interested reader is referred to one of the numerous texts, such as [1, 3, 27] Details of the formal semantics of Z are given in [25] We will not consider such issues further in this paper. 4 Types and Primitives Underlying AgentSpeak(L) as in other BDI systems (e.g. [10, 15, 17]) are the primitives that represent the basic mental attitudes in such components as goals, beliefs, intentions, and so on. In this section we define the basic types required to build the formal model. Though we explain each part of the specification, we assume some familiarity with Z. We ....

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief desire joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

....approach, the foreman agent (which may itself be one of the robots, and may change depending on the subtask) dynamically negotiates with other agents to form teams and assigns them tasks. The teams form commitment groups with joint intentions that provide the basis for their coordinated actions [6], 20] The individual agents can also negotiate with one another, if necessary, to carry out their assigned tasks. For instance, if two robots are jointly holding a workpiece, one may request the other to move in order to provide it with more freedom of motion. In addition to task negotiation, ....

....with each other, without having to invoke a high level planner. These characteristics reduce the need for inter robot communication and improve overall reliability. As such, our approach is similar to some work in which coordination strategies are explicitly represented and reasoned about (e.g. [6], 19] 20] Our architecture also supports dynamic team formation. Agent coordination occurs between agents filling specific roles in the structure of the team, and roles can be dynamically assigned to agents, in a manner similar to [7] We also plan to use distributed methods to optimize the ....

N.R. Jennings. 1993 "Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-Joint-Intention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving," International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3), pp. 289-318.

....approach, the foreman agent (which may itself be one of the robots, and may change depending on the subtask) dynamically negotiates with other agents to form teams and assigns them tasks. The teams form commitment groups with joint intentions that provide the basis for their coordinated actions [8], 22] The individual agents can also negotiate with one another, if necessary, to carry out their assigned tasks. For instance, if two robots are jointly holding a workpiece, one may request the other to move in order to obtain increased freedom of motion. In addition to task negotiation, the ....

....with each other, without having to invoke a high level planner. These characteristics reduce the need for inter robot communication and improve overall reliability. As such, our approach is similar to some work in which coordination strategies are explicitly represented and reasoned about [8], 21] 22] Our architecture also supports dynamic team formation. Coordination occurs between agents filling specific roles in the structure of the team, and roles can be dynamically assigned to agents, in a manner similar to [9] We also plan to use distributed methods to optimize the ....

N.R. Jennings. 1993 Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-Joint-Intention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving, International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3), pp. 289-318.

....environment. Even if this definition leads to a weak notion of what an agent is [WoJe 95] it is sufficient to model complex systems and provide simulations to help in understanding the emergence of macro behaviors. Designing more complex agents, in terms of human like concepts such as GRATE [Jenn 93] or IRMA [BrIP 88] is not so rational in this specific case. With this point of view about the notion of agent, the next section presents how the MultiAgent System has been designed for the Piton de la Fournaise volcano simulation purposes. The method is based on three points: first, a ....

: N. Jennings, "Specification and Implementation of a belief desire jointintention architecture for collaborative problem solving", in Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2 (3), 289-318, 1993.

....role to that of dropping a goal. 4. Implementing Jointly Responsible Agents The Responsibility Model suggests a high level architecture for cooperating agents in which joint intentions play a central role in coordinating future actions and in controlling the execution of current activities [38]. Adoption of the Responsibility Model therefore places certain constraints on the agent architecture, it is not neutral in terms of implementation. However the descriptions it provides are at a suitably high level to ensure there is still significant leeway in how the concepts will actually be ....

N. R. Jennings, Specification and Implementation of a Belief Desire Joint Intention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving, Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2 (3) (1993) 289-318.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings, Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-JointIntention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving, Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2 (3) (1993) 289--318.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-Joint-Intention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

Jennings N. R. (1993) Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-JointIntention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems 2(3), 289-318

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a beliefdesire -joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

Jennings, N. R., "Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-JointIntention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving," Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1993, pp. 289--318.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief-desire-joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief-desire-joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief-desire-jointintention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings, "Specification and implementation of a belief-desirejoint -intention architecture for collaborative problem solving," Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief-desire-joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a belief-desire-joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and implementation of a beliefdesire -joint-intention architecture for collaborative problem solving. Intl. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N. R. Jennings. Specification and Implementation of a Belief-Desire-JointIntention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(3):289--318, 1993.

No context found.

N.R. Jennings, "Specification and Implementation of a Belief Desire Joint-Intention Architecture for Collaborative Problem Solving," J. Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1993, pp. 289--318.

First 50 documents

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC