An Architecture for Normative Reactive Agents

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2413)


We present a reactive agent architecture which incorporates decision-theoretic notions to drive the deliberation and meta-deliberation process, and illustrate how this architecture can be exploited to model an agent who reacts to contextually instantiated norms by monitoring for norm instantiation and replanning its current intentions.


Normative Reasoning Current Intention Focus Action Derivation Tree Abstract Action 
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.
    G. Boella, R. Damiano, and L. Lesmo. Cooperation and group utility. In N.R. Jennings and Y. Lespérance, editors, Intelligent Agents VI, pages 319–333. Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Boella and L. Lesmo. A game theoretic approach to norms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. E. Bratman, D. J. Israel, and M. E. Pollack. Plans and resource-bounded practical reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 4:349–355, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213–261, 1990.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Conte, C. Castelfranchi, and F. Dignum. Autonomous norm acceptance. In J. Mueller, editor, Proc. of the 5th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, Paris 1998, LNAI, Berlin, 1999. Springer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rossana Damiano. The Role of Norms in Intelligent Reactive Agents. Ph.d. thesis, Universitá di Torino, Torino, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Haddawy and M. Suwandi. Decision-theoretic refinement planning using inheritance abstraction. In Proc. of 2nd AIPS Int. Conf., pages 266–271, Menlo Park, CA, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steve Hanks and Daniel S. Weld. A domain-independent algorithm for plan adaptation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 2:319–360, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Nebel and J. Koehler. Plan modification versus plan generation: A complexity-theoretic perspective. In Proceedings of of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1436–1441, Chambery, France, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Tennenholtz. On social constraints for rational agents. Computational Intelligence, 15(4), 1999.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mike Wooldridge and Simon Parsons. Intention reconsideration reconsidered. In Jörg Müller, Munindar P. Singh, and Anand S. Rao, editors, Proc. of ATAL-98), volume 1555, pages 63–80. Springer-Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversita’ di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations