Abstract
The Bdi model of rational agency has been studied for over three decades. Many robust multiagent systems have been developed, and a number of Bdi logics have been studied. Following this intensive development phase, the importance of integrating Bdi models with inconsistency handling and revision theory have been emphasized. There is also a demand for a tighter connection between Bdi-based implementations and Bdi logics. In this paper, we address these postulates by introducing a novel, paraconsistent logical Bdi model close to implementation, with building blocks that can be represented as Sql/rule-based databases. Importantly, tractability is achieved by reasoning as querying. This stands in a sharp contrast to the high complexity of known Bdi logics. We also extend belief shadowing, a shallow and lightweight alternative to deep and computationally demanding belief revision, to encompass agents’ motivational attitudes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Data Availibility Statement
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Abiteboul, S., Hull, R., Vianu, V.: Foundations of Databases. Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, CA (1996)
Arieli, O., Avron, A.: The value of the four values. Artif. Intell. 102(1), 97–141 (1998)
Belnap, N.: A useful four-valued logic. In: Epstein, G., Dunn, J. (eds.) Modern Uses of Many Valued Logic, pp. 5–37. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)
Béziau, J.Y., Carnielli, W., Gabbay, D. (eds.): Handbook of Paraconsistency. College Pub, London (2007)
Białek Ł, Dunin-Kęplicz B, Szałas A Belief shadowing. In: Mascardi, V., Ricci, A., Weyns, D. (eds) Engineering Multi-Agent Systems. EMAS 2018, LNCS, vol 11375. Springer, Cham, pp 158–180 (2019)
Białek, Ł, Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A.: A paraconsistent approach to actions in informationally complex environments. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 86(4), 231–255 (2019)
Bordini, R., El Fallah, Seghrouchni A., Hindriks, K., et al.: Agent programming in the cognitive era. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 34(2), 37 (2020)
Bratman, M.: Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA (1987)
Bratman, M., Israel, D., Pollack, M.: Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Comput. Intell. 4, 349–355 (1988)
Cardoso, R., Ferrando, A.: A review of agent-based programming for multi-agent systems. Computers 10(2), 16 (2021)
Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artif Intelligence 42(3), 213–261 (1990)
da Costa N, Béziau J, Bueno OO (2005) On the usefulness of paraconsistent logic. In: Vanderveken D (ed) Logic, Thought and Action, LEUS, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht, chap 20, p 465 – 478
deAmo, S., Pais, M.: A paraconsistent logic programming approach for querying inconsistent databases. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 46(2), 366–386 (2007)
d’Inverno, M., Luck, M.: Understanding Agent Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2001)
d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Georgeff, M., et al.: The dMARS architecture: A specification of the distributed multi-agent reasoning system. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 9(1–2), 5–53 (2004)
Dunin-Kȩplicz, B., Szałas, A.: Shadowing in many-valued nested structures. In: Proc. 50th IEEE Int Symp. on Multiple-Valued Logics. IEEE, New Jersey, p 230–236 (2020)
Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A.: Taming complex beliefs. Trans on Comp Collective Intelligence XI LNCS 8065, 1–21 (2013)
Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems. A Formal Approach. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK (2010)
Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A., Verbrugge, R.: Tractable reasoning about group beliefs. In: Dalpiaz, F., Dix, J., van Riemsdijk, M. (eds.) EMAS’2014, LNCS, vol. 8758, pp. 328–350. Springer, Cham (2014)
Fabiano, F., Burigana, A., Dovier, A., et al.: Multi-agent epistemic planning with inconsistent beliefs, trust and lies. In: Duc Nghia Pham, D., Theeramunkong, T., Governatori, G., et al. (eds) Proc. PRICAI 2021: Trends in AI 18th Pacific Rim Int. Conf Part I, LNCS, vol 13031. Springer, pp 586–597 (2021)
Fermé, E., Hansson, S.O.: AGM 25 years: Twenty-five years of research in belief change. J of Philosophical Logic 40(2), 295–331 (2011)
Gebser, M., Kaminski, R., Kaufmann, B., et al.: Answer Set Solving in Practice. Synthesis Lectures on AI and ML, Morgan and Claypool Pub., San Rafael, CA (2012)
Gelfond, M., Kahl, Y.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning, and the Design of Intelligent Agents - The Answer-Set Programming Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2014)
Georgeff, M., Lansky, A.: Reactive reasoning and planning. In: Forbus, K., Shrobe, H. (eds) Proc. 6th National Conf. on AI. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, pp 677–682 (1987)
Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Perrussel, L., et al.: BDI logics for BDI architectures: Old problems, new perspectives. Künstliche Intell 31(1), 73–83 (2017)
van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Logics for multiagent systems. AI Mag. 33(3), 92–105 (2012)
Hunter, A., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Measuring inconsistency in multi-agent systems. Künstliche Intell 28(3), 169–178 (2014)
Kalech M, Natan A (2022) Model-based diagnosis of multi-agent systems: A survey. In: Proc. 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’2022. AAAI Press, pp 12334–12341
Kleene, S.: On notation for ordinal numbers. J Symbolic Logic 3, 150–155 (1938)
Kollingbaum, M., Norman, T., Preece, A., et al.: Norm conflicts and inconsistencies in virtual organisations. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., et al. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II - AAMAS 2006 and ECAI 2006 International Workshops, COIN Revised Selected Papers, LNCS, vol 4386. Springer, pp 245–258 (2006)
Liberatore, P.: The complexity of belief update. Artif. Intell. 119(1), 141–190 (2000)
Lorini, E., Herzig, A.: A logic of intention and attempt. Synthese 163(1), 45–77 (2008)
Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Living with inconsistency and taming nonmonotonicity. In: de Moor, O., Gottlob, G., Furche, T., et al. (eds.) Datalog Reloaded, LNCS, vol. 6702, pp. 334–398. Springer, Cham (2011)
Małuszyński, J., Szałas, A.: Partiality and inconsistency in agents’ belief bases. In: Barbucha, D., Le, M., Howlett, R., et al. (eds.) KES-AMSTA, Frontiers in AI and Applications, vol. 252, pp. 3–17. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2013)
Meyer, J., Broersen, J., Herzig, A.: BDI logics. In: van Ditmarsch, H. JHalpern, van der Hoek W, et al (eds) Handbook of Logics of Knowledge and Belief. College Pub., London, chap 10, p 453–498 (2015)
Meyer, J.J., de Boer, F., van Eijk, R., et al.: On programming KARO agents. Log. J. IGPL 9(2), 245–256 (2001)
Novák, P., Dix, J.: Modular BDI architecture. In: Nakashima, H., Wellman, M., Weiss, G., et al. (eds.) 5th Int, pp. 1009–1015. Joint Conf. AAMAS, ACM, New York (2006)
Peppas, P.: Belief revision. In: van Harmelen, F., Lifschitz, V., Porter, B. (eds.) Handbook of KR, pp. 317–359. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)
Priest, G.: The logic of paradox. J. Philos. Log. 8(1), 219–241 (1979)
Priest, G.: Paraconsistent belief revision. Theoria 67(3), 214–228 (2001)
Rao, A., Georgeff, M.: Decision procedures for BDI logics. J Logic and Computation 8(3), 293–344 (1990)
Shoham, Y.: Logical theories of intention and the database perspective. J. Philos. Log. 38(6), 633–647 (2009)
Testa, R.R., Coniglio, M.E., Ribeiro, M.M.: AGM-like paraconsistent belief change. Logic Journal of the IGPL 25(4), 632–672 (2017)
Urquhart, A.: Many-Valued Logic. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 3, pp. 71–116. Reidel, Dordrecht (1986)
Villadsen, J.: Paraconsistent assertions. In: Lindemann, G., Denzinger, J., Timm, I., et al. (eds) Proc. MATES: 2nd German Conf. Multiagent System Technologies, LNCS, vol 3187. Springer, Cham, pp 99–113 (2004)
Woolridge, M.: Reasoning about Rational Agents. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Chichester, UK (2003)
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by grant 2015/19/B/ST6/02589 of the National Science Centre Poland. We would also like to thank reviewers for constructive comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Szałas, A. Modeling and shadowing paraconsistent BDI agents. Ann Math Artif Intell 92, 855–876 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-023-09902-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10472-023-09902-w
Keywords
- Beliefs-Desires-Intentions models
- Paraconsistent reasoning
- Doxastic reasoning
- Shadowing
- Reasoning by querying