A Dynamic Logic Programming Based System for Agents with Declarative Goals

  • Vivek Nigam
  • João Leite
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4327)


Goals are used to define the behavior of (pro-active) agents. It is our view that the goals of an agent can be seen as a knowledge base of the situations that it wants to achieve. It is therefore in a natural way that we use Dynamic Logic Programming (DLP), an extension of Answer-Set Programming that allows for the representation of knowledge that changes with time, to represent the goals of the agent and their evolution, in a simple, declarative, fashion. In this paper, we represent agent’s goals as a DLP, discuss and show how to represent some situations where the agent should adopt or drop goals, and investigate some properties that emerge from using such representation.


Logic Program Achievement Goal Stable Model White Wine Belief Base 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alferes, J.J., Banti, F., Brogi, A., Leite, J.A.: The refined extension principle for semantics of dynamic logic programming. Studia Logica 79(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alferes, J.J., Leite, J., Pereira, L.M., Przymusinska, H., Przymusinski, T.: Dynamic updates of non-monotonic knowledge bases. Journal of Logic Programming 45(1–3), 43–70 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bacchus, F., Grove, A.J.: Utility independence in a qualitative decision theory. In: KR, pp. 542–552 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bratman, M.: Intentions, Plans and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J.Ch.: Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In: Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications, ch. 2. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum, F., Conte, R.: Intentional agents and goal formation. In: Rao, A., Singh, M.P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) ATAL 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1365, pp. 231–243. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyar, J.-J.C.: Agent programming with declarative goals. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings, N.R., Norman, T.J., Faratin, P., O’Brien, P., Odgers, B.: Autonomous agents for business process management. Applied Artificial Intelligence 14(2), 145–189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leite, J.: Evolving Knowledge Bases. IOS press, Amsterdam (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leite, J.: On some differences between semantics of logic program updates. In: Lemaître, C., Reyes, C.A., González, J.A. (eds.) IBERAMIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3315, pp. 375–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leite, J., Alferes, J.J., Pereira, L.M.: On the use of multi-dimensional dynamic logic programming to represent societal agents’ viewpoints. In: Brazdil, P.B., Jorge, A.M. (eds.) EPIA 2001. LNCS, vol. 2258, pp. 276–289. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leite, J., Alferes, J.J., Moniz Pereira, L.: \(\mathcal{MINERVA}\) - A dynamic logic programming agent architecture. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, p. 141. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leite, J., Pereira, L.M.: Generalizing updates: From models to programs. In: Dix, J., Moniz Pereira, L., Przymusinski, T.C. (eds.) LPKR 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1471, pp. 224–246. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moreira, Á.F., Vieira, R., Bordini, R.H.: Extending the operational semantics of a BDI agent-oriented programming language for introducing speech-act based communication. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Sterling, L., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2990, pp. 135–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nigam, V., Leite, J.: Incorporating knowledge updates in 3apl. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4411. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting & avoiding interference between goals in intelligent agents. In: IJCAI 2003, pp. 721–726. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Dignum, F.P.M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Dynamics of declarative goals in agent programming. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.Ch.: Semantics of declarative goals in agent programming. In: AAMAS 2005. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative and procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: KR 2002. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wooldridge, M.: Multi-agent systems: an introduction. Wiley, Chichester (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivek Nigam
    • 1
  • João Leite
    • 1
  1. 1.CENTRIA, New University of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations