Skip to main content

On Partially Observable MDPs and BDI Models

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Foundations and Applications of Multi-Agent Systems

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2403))

Abstract

Decision theoretic planning in ai by means of solving Partially Observable Markov decision processes (pomdps) has been shown to be both powerful and versatile. However, such approaches are computationally hard and, from a design stance, are not necessarily intuitive for conceptualising many problems. We propose a novel method for solving pomdps, which provides a designer with a more intuitive means of specifying pomdp planning problems. In particular, we investigate the relationship between pomdp planning theory and belief-desire-intention (bdi) agent theory. The idea is to view a bdi agent as a specification of an pomdp problem. This view is to be supported by a correspondence between an pomdp problem and a bdi agent. In this paper, we outline such a correspondence between pomdp and bdi by explaining how to specify one in terms of the other. Additionally, we illustrate the significance of a correspondence by showing empirically that it yields satisfying results in complex domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. Bellman. Dynamic Programming. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  2. C. Boutilier, T. Dean, and S. Hanks. Decision-theoretic planning: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. Journal of AI Research, pages 1–94, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  3. C. Boutilier, R. Reiter, M. Soutchanski, and S. Thrun. Decision-theoretic, high-level agent programming in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-00), pages 355–362, Menlo Park, CA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  4. M. E. Bratman, D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4:349–355, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. L. P. Kaelbling, M. L. Littman, and A. R. Cassandra. Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artificial Intelligence, 101:99–134, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. D. Kinny and M. Georgeff. Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91), pages 82–88, Sydney, Australia, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. Lang, L. v. d. Torre, and E. Weydert. Utilitarian desires. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2002. To appear.

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. E. Pollack and M. Ringuette. Introducing the Tileworld: Experimentally evaluating agent architectures. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-90), pages 183–189, Boston, MA, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. An abstract architecture for rational agents. In C. Rich, W. Swartout, and B. Nebel, editors, Proceedings of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR&R-92), pages 439–449, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. Russell and E. Wefald. Principles of metareasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 49(1–3):361–395, 1991.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. M. C. Schut and M. Wooldridge. Intention reconsideration in complex environments. In M. Gini and J. Rosenschein, editors, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2000), pages 209–216, Barcelona, Spain, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. C. Schut and M. Wooldridge. Principles of intention reconsideration. In E. Andre and S. Sen, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2001), Montreal, Canada, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M. C. Schut, M. Wooldridge, and S. Parsons. Reasoning about intentions in uncertain domains. In D. Dubois and H. Prade, editors, Proceedings of European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, Toulouse, France, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  14. M. Wooldridge and S. D. Parsons. Intention reconsideration reconsidered. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao, editors, Intelligent Agents V (LNAI Volume 1555), pages 63–80. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Schut, M., Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S. (2002). On Partially Observable MDPs and BDI Models. In: d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Fisher, M., Preist, C. (eds) Foundations and Applications of Multi-Agent Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2403. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45634-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45634-1_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43962-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45634-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics