Logic-Based Specification Languages for Intelligent Software Agents

The research field of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE) aims to find abstractions, languages, methodologies and toolkits for modeling, verifying, validating and prototyping complex applications conceptualized as Multiagent Systems (MASs). A very lively research sub-field studies how formal methods can be used for AOSE. This paper presents a detailed survey of six logic-based executable agent specification languages that have been chosen for their potential to be integrated in our ARPEGGIO project, an open framework for specifying and prototyping a MAS. The six languages are ConGoLog, Agent-0, the IMPACT agent programming language, DyLog, Concurrent METATEM and Ehhf. For each executable language, the logic foundations are described and an example of use is shown. A comparison of the six languages and a survey of similar approaches complete the paper, together with considerations of the advantages of using logic-based languages in MAS modeling and prototyping.Comment: 67 pages, 1 table, 1 figure. Accepted for publication by the Journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming", volume 4, Maurice Bruynooghe Editor-in-Chie

An AgentSpeak meta-interpreter and its applications

A meta-interpreter for a language can provide an easy way of experimenting with modifications or extensions to a language. We give a meta-interpreter for the AgentSpeak language, prove its correctness, and show how the meta-interpreter can be used to extend the AgentSpeak language and to add features to the implementation

An operational semantics for a fragment of PRS

The Procedural Reasoning System (PRS) is arguably the first implementation of the Belief–Desire–Intention (BDI) approach to agent programming. PRS remains extremely influential, directly or indirectly inspiring the development of subsequent BDI agent programming languages. However, perhaps surprisingly given its centrality in the BDI paradigm, PRS lacks a formal operational semantics, making it difficult to determine its expressive power relative to other agent programming languages. This paper takes a first step towards closing this gap, by giving a formal semantics for a significant fragment of PRS. We prove key properties of the semantics relating to PRS-specific programming constructs, and show that even the fragment of PRS we consider is strictly more expressive than the plan constructs found in typical BDI languages

BDI agent architectures: A survey

The BDI model forms the basis of much of the research on symbolic models of agency and agent-oriented software engineering. While many variants of the basic BDI model have been proposed in the literature, there has been no systematic review of research on BDI agent architectures in over 10 years. In this paper, we survey the main approaches to each component of the BDI architecture, how these have been realised in agent programming languages, and discuss the trade-offs inherent in each approach

Towards Formal Modeling of Affective Agents in a BDI Architecture

[EN] Affective characteristics are crucial factors that influence human behavior, and often the prevalence of either emotions or reason varies on each individual. We aim to facilitate the development of agents reasoning considering their affective characteristics. We first identify core processes in an affective BDI agent, and we integrate them into an affective agent architecture (GenIA3). These tasks include the extension of the BDI agent reasoning cycle to be compliant with the architecture, and the extension of the agent language (Jason) to support affect-based reasoning, and the adjustment of the equilibrium between the agent s affective and rational sides.This work was supported by the Generalitat Valenciana grant PROMETEOII/2013/019, and the Spanish TIN2014-55206-R project of the Ministerio de Economa y Competitividad.Alfonso Espinosa, B.; Vivancos, E.; Botti, V. (2017). Towards Formal Modeling of Affective Agents in a BDI Architecture. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology. 17(1):5:1-5:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3001584S5:15:23171Bexy Alfonso, Emilio Vivancos, and Vicente J. Botti. 2014. An open architecture for affective traits in a BDI agent. In Proceedings of the 6th ECTA 2014. Part of the 6th IJCCI 2014. 320--325.Bexy Alfonso, Emilio Vivancos, and Vicente J. Botti. 2016a. Design of an Affective Intelligent Agent on GenIA. Technical Report. DSIC, UPV, Spain.Bexy Alfonso, Emilio Vivancos, and Vicente J. Botti. 2016b. Toward a Systematic Development of Affective Intelligent Agents. Technical Report. DSIC, UPV, Spain.Gordon Willard Allport. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. Henry Holt, New York.Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 2 (1977), 191.Cristina Battaglino, Rossana Damiano, and Leonardo Lesmo. Emotional range in value-sensitive deliberation. In Proceedings of AAMAS’13. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 769--776.Antoine Bechara, Hanna Damasio, and Antonio R Damasio. 2000. Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 10, 3 (2000), 295--307.Rafael H. Bordini and Jomi Fred Hübner. 2010. Semantics for the Jason variant of AgentSpeak (plan failure and some internal actions). In Proceedings of ECAI’10. IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 635--640.Rafael H. Bordini, Jomi Fred Hübner, and Michael Wooldridge. 2007. Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley.Tibor Bosse, Joost Broekens, João Dias, and Janneke van der Zwaan. 2014. Emotion Modeling. Springer.Scott Brave, Clifford Nass, and Kevin Hutchinson. 2005. Computers that care: Investigating the effects of orientation of emotion exhibited by an embodied computer agent. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 62, 2 (2005), 161--178.Jerome R. Busemeyer, Eric Dimperio, and Ryan K. Jessup. 2007. Integrating Emotional Processes Into Decision-Making Models. Oxford University Press, 29--44.Colin F Camerer, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin. 2011. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton University Press.Martin A Conway. 1990. Autobiographical Memory: An Introduction. Open University Press.Ronald De Sousa. 1990. The Rationality of Emotion. MIT Press.João Dias, Samuel Mascarenhas, and Ana Paiva. 2014. FAtiMA Modular: Towards an Agent Architecture with a Generic Appraisal Framework. Springer International Publishing, 44--56. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12973-0_3Magy Seif El-Nasr, John Yen, and Thomas R Ioerger. 2000. Flame—fuzzy logic adaptive model of emotions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent systems 3, 3 (2000), 219--257.Hans Jürgen Eysenck. 1982. Personality, Genetics, and Behavior: Selected Papers. Praeger, Chapter Development of a Theory, 1--48.Shane Frederick. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19, 4 (2005), 25--42.N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, and S. Bem. 2000. Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts. Cambridge University Press.Nico H. Frijda. 2007. The Laws of Emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Incorporated.Patrick Gebhard. 2005. ALMA: A layered model of affect. In Proceedings of the 4th AAMAS. ACM, New York, NY, 29--36. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1082473.1082478Lewis R. Goldberg and others. 1990. An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 6 (1990), 1216--1229.James J. Gross and Ross A. Thompson. 2011. Emotion regulation: Conceptual fundations. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation. Guilford Publications.JonathanY. Ito, DavidV. Pynadath, and StacyC. Marsella. 2010. Modeling self-deception within a decision-theoretic framework. AAMAS 20, 1 (2010), 3--13. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-009-9096-7William G. Kennedy. 2012. Modelling human behaviour in agent-based models. In Agent-based Models of Geographical Systems. Springer, 167--179.Jonathan Klein, Youngme Moon, and Rosalind W. Picard. 2002. This computer responds to user frustration: Theory, design, and results. Interacting with Computers 14, 2 (2002), 119--140.Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Springer.Stacy Marsella and Jonathan Gratch. 2003. Modeling coping behavior in virtual humans: Don’t worry, be happy. In Proceedings of AAMAS’03. ACM, 313--320. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/860575.860626Stacy C. Marsella and Jonathan Gratch. 2009. EMA: A process model of appraisal dynamics. Cognitive Systems Research 10, 1 (2009), 70--90.Stacy C. Marsella, Jonathan Gratch, and Paolo Petta. 2010. Computational models of emotion. In A Blueprint for Affective Computing: A Sourcebook and Manual. OUP Oxford, 21--46.Robert R. McCrae and Oliver P. John. 1992. An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60, 2 (1992), 175--215.Albert Mehrabian. 1996a. Analysis of the big-five personality factors in terms of the PAD temperament model. Australian Journal of Psychology 48, 2 (1996), 86--92. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00049539608259510Albert Mehrabian. 1996b. Pleasure-arousal-dominance: A general framework for describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current Psychology 14, 4 (1996), 261--292. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02686918Albert Mehrabian and James A. Russell. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press.John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2006. Reasoning about emotional agents. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 21, 6 (June 2006), 601--619. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/int.v21:6Katherine Nelson. 1993. The psychological and social origins of autobiographical memory. Psychological Science 4, 1 (1993), 7--14.Magalie Ochs, David Sadek, and Catherine Pelachaud. 2012. A formal model of emotions for an empathic rational dialog agent. AAMAS 24, 3 (2012), 410--440. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9156-zAndrew Ortony. 2003. On making believable emotional agents believable. In Emotions in Humans and Artifacts, R. P. Trapple, P. Petta, and S. Payer (Eds.). MIT Press, Chapter 6, 189--212.Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore, and Allan Collins. 1988. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.Rosalind W. Picard and Karen K. Liu. 2007. Relative subjective count and assessment of interruptive technologies applied to mobile monitoring of stress. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 4 (2007), 361--375.César F. Pimentel and Maria R. Cravo. 2005. Affective revision. In Progress in Artificial Intelligence, Carlos Bento, Amílcar Cardoso, and Gaël Dias (Eds.). LNCS, Vol. 3808. Springer Berlin, 115--126.Gordon D. Plotkin. 1981. A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19. Aarhus University.Anand S. Rao. 1996. Agentspeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, Rudy Van Hoe (Ed.). Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Rainer Reisenzein, Eva Hudlicka, Mehdi Dastani, Jonathan Gratch, Koen Hindriks, Emiliano Lorini, and J-JC Meyer. 2013. Computational modeling of emotion: Toward improving the inter- and intradisciplinary exchange. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 4, 3 (2013), 246--266.Luis-Felipe Rodríguez and Félix Ramos. 2014. Development of computational models of emotions for autonomous agents: A review. Cognitive Computation 6, 3 (2014), 351--375. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12559-013-9244-xIra J. Roseman. 2001. A Model of Appraisal in the Emotion System: Integrating Theory, Research, and Applications. Oxford University Press, 68--91.James A. Russell. 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review 110, 1 (2003), 145--172.Klaus R. Scherer. 2001. Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research 92 (2001), 120.Norbert Schwarz. 2000. Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Cognition 8 Emotion 14, 4 (2000), 433--440.Leila Selimbegović, Isabelle Régner, Pascal Huguet, and Armand Chatard. 2015. On the power of autobiographical memories: From threat and challenge appraisals to actual behaviour. Memory (2015), 1--8.Martin Sewell. 2010. Emotions help solve the prisoner’s dilemma. In Proceedings of the Behavioural Finance Working Group Conference: Fairness, Trust and Emotions in Finance, London. 1--2.Craig A. Smith and Richard S. Lazarus. 1990. Emotion and adaptation. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Lawrence A. Pervin (Ed.). 609--637.Bas R. Steunebrink, Mehdi Dastani, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2009. A formal model of emotion-based action tendency for intelligent agents. In Proceedings of EPIA’09. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 174--186. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04686-5_15Bas R. Steunebrink, Mehdi Dastani, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2012. A formal model of emotion triggers: An approach for BDI agents. Synthese 185 (2012), 83--129. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-0004-8AW Tucker. 1983. The mathematics of tucker: A sampler. The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal 14, 3 (1983), 228--232.Renata Vieira, Álvaro F. Moreira, Michael Wooldridge, and Rafael H. Bordini. 2007. On the formal semantics of speech-act based communication in an agent-oriented programming language. J. Artif. Intell. Res. (JAIR) 29 (2007), 221--267.G. Weiss. 2013. Multiagent Systems. MIT Press

Updating Action Descriptions and Plans for Cognitive Agents

Extended Abstract and Poster PresentationPostprin

Reasoning about norms under uncertainty in dynamic environments

The behaviour of norm-autonomous agents is determined by their goals and the norms that are explicitly represented inside their minds. Thus, they require mechanisms for acquiring and accepting norms, determining when norms are relevant to their case, and making decisions about norm compliance. Up un- til now the existing proposals on norm-autonomous agents assume that agents interact within a deterministic environment that is certainly perceived. In prac- tice, agents interact by means of sensors and actuators under uncertainty with non-deterministic and dynamic environments. Therefore, the existing propos- als are unsuitable or, even, useless to be applied when agents have a physical presence in some real-world environment. In response to this problem we have developed the n-BDI architecture. In this paper, we propose a multi -context graded BDI architecture (called n-BDI) that models norm-autonomous agents able to deal with uncertainty in dynamic environments. The n-BDI architecture has been experimentally evaluated and the results are shown in this paper.This paper was partially funded by the Spanish government under Grant CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022 and the Valencian government under Project PROMETEOH/2013/019.Criado Pacheco, N.; Argente, E.; Noriega, P.; Botti Navarro, VJ. (2014). Reasoning about norms under uncertainty in dynamic environments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning. 55(9):2049-2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2014.02.004S2049207055