Advertisement

What Does It Mean to Have an Architecture?

  • Brian LoganEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cognitive Systems Monographs book series (COSMOS, volume 22)

Abstract

In this chapter, I propose an approach to architectures, which makes precise exactly what it means for an agent to ‘have’ an architecture, and allows us to establish properties of an agent expressed in terms of its architectural description. Using this approach, it is possible to verify whether two different agent programmes really have the same architecture or the same properties, allowing a more precise comparison of architectures and the agent programmes which implement them. I illustrate the approach with a number of examples which show both how to establish qualitative and quantitative properties of architectures and agent programmes, and how to establish whether a particular agent has a particular architecture. I focus on architectures of software agents, however, a similar approach can be applied to robots and other kinds of intelligent systems.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am highly indebted to Natasha Alechina: without her logical abilities and willingness to invent nonstandard logical approaches to models of agents, none of this work would have been possible. I am also indebted to colleagues in the agent programming language community, particularly Rafael Bordini, Mehdi Dastani, Koen Hindriks and John-Jules Meyer and to former and current students in the Agents Lab at Nottingham, including Mark Jago, Neil Madden, Abdur Rakib, Nguyen Hoang Nga, Fahad Khan and Doan Thu Trang.

References

  1. Albore A, Alechina N, Bertoli P, Ghidini C, Logan B, Serafini L (2006) Model-checking memory requirements of resource-bounded reasoners. In: Proceedings of the twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2006), AAAI Press, pp 213–218Google Scholar
  2. Alechina N, Logan B (2002) Ascribing beliefs to resource bounded agents. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2002), vol 2. ACM Press, Bologna, pp 881–888Google Scholar
  3. Alechina N, Logan B (2005) Verifying bounds on deliberation time in multi-agent systems. In: Gleizes MP, Kaminka G, Nowe A, Ossowski S, Tuyls K, Verbeeck K (eds) Proceedings of the third European workshop on multiagent systems (EUMAS’05). Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie van Belgie voor Wetenschappen en Kunsten, Brussels, Belgium, pp 25–34Google Scholar
  4. Alechina N, Logan B (2007) Formal evaluation of agent architectures. In: Kaminka GA, Burghart CR (eds) Evaluating architectures for intelligence: papers from the 2007 AAAI workshop, AAAI Press, technical report WS-07-04, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  5. Alechina N, Logan B (2009) A logic of situated resource-bounded agents. J Logic Lang Inf 18(1): 79–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-008-9073-6
  6. Alechina N, Logan B (2010) Belief ascription under bounded resources. Synthese 173(2):179–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9706-6
  7. Alechina N, Logan B, Whitsey M (2004a) A complete and decidable logic for resource-bounded agents. In: Jennings NR, Sierra C, Sonenberg L, Tambe M (eds) Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2004), vol 2. ACM Press, New York, pp 606–613Google Scholar
  8. Alechina N, Logan B, Whitsey M (2004b) Modelling communicating agents in timed reasoning logics. In: Alferes JJ, Leite J (eds) Proceedings of the ninth European conference on logics in artificial intelligence (JELIA 2004), Springer, Lisbon, no. 3229 in LNAI, pp 95–107Google Scholar
  9. Alechina N, Bertoli P, Ghidini C, Jago M, Logan B, Serafini L (2006a) Verifying space and time requirements for resource-bounded agents. In: Edelkamp S, Lomuscio A (eds) Proceedings of the fourth workshop on model checking and artificial intelligence (MoChArt-2006), pp 16–30Google Scholar
  10. Alechina N, Jago M, Logan B (2006b) Modal logics for communicating rule-based agents. In: Brewka G, Coradeschi S, Perini A, Traverso P (eds) Proceedings of the 17th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI 2006), IOS Press, pp 322–326Google Scholar
  11. Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2007) A logic of agent programs. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI 2007), AAAI Press, pp 795–800Google Scholar
  12. Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2008a) Reasoning about agent deliberation. In: Brewka G, Lang J (eds) Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’08). AAAI, Sydney, Australia, pp 16–26Google Scholar
  13. Alechina N, Logan B, Nga NH, Rakib A (2008b) Verifying time, memory and communication bounds in systems of reasoning agents. In: Padgham L, Parkes D, Müller J, Parsons S (eds) Proceedings of the seventh international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2008), vol 2. IFAAMAS, Estoril, Portugal, pp 736–743Google Scholar
  14. Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2010a) Reasoning about agent deliberation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 22(2):1–26. doi: 10.1007/s10458-010-9129-2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9129-2
  15. Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2010b) Using theorem proving to verify properties of agent programs. In: Dastani M, Hindriks KV, Meyer JJC (eds) Specification and verification of multi-agent systems, chap 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  16. Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B, Meyer JJC (2011) Reasoning about plan revision in BDI agent programs. Theoretical Computer Science. doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2011.05.052, (in press)
  17. Anderson JR, Libiere C (1998) The atomic components of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  18. Dastani M (2008) 2APL: a practical agent programming language. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 16(3):214–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dastani M, Meyer JJC (2008) A practical agent programming language. In: Dastani M, El Fallah-Seghrouchni A, Ricci A, Winikoff M (eds) Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on programming multi-agent systems (ProMAS’07),vol 4908. Springer, LNCS, Berlin, pp 107–123Google Scholar
  20. Dastani M, van Riemsdijk MB, Dignum F, Meyer JJC (2004) A programming language for cognitive agents: goal directed 3APL. In: Dastani M, Dix J, El Fallah-Seghrouchni A (eds) Programming multi-agent systems, first international workshop, ProMAS 2003, Melbourne, Australia, July 15, 2003, Selected revised and invited papers, vol 3067. Springer, LNCS, pp 111–130. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l7dqkvqh5u941l4b
  21. Dastani M, van Riemsdijk MB, Meyer JJC (2005) Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In: Bordini RH, Dastani M, Dix J, El Fallah-Seghrouchni A (eds) Multi-agent programming: languages, platforms and applications, multiagent systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, vol 15. Springer, pp 39–67Google Scholar
  22. Doan TT, Logan B, Alechina N (2009) Verifying dribble agents. In: Baldoni M, Bentahar J, Lloyd J, van Riemsdijk MB (eds) Seventh international workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT 2009). Workshop Notes, Budapest Hungary, pp 162–177Google Scholar
  23. Fagin R, Halpern JY, Moses Y, Vardi MY (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer MJ, Ladner RE (1979) Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J Comput Syst Sci 18(2):194–211CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Georgeff MP, Pell B, Pollack ME, Tambe M, Wooldridge M (1999) The Belief-Desire-Intention model of agency. In: Müller JP, Singh MP, Rao AS (eds) Proceedings Intelligent agents V, agent theories, architectures, and languages, 5th international workshop, (ATAL’98), Paris, France, July 4–7, 1998, vol 1555. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  26. Hintikka J (1962) Knowledge and belief. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  27. van der Hoek W, van Linder B, Meyer JJC (1999) An integrated modal approach to rational agents. In: Wooldridge M, Rao A (eds) Foundations of rational agency. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 133–168Google Scholar
  28. Newell A (1990) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Nilsson N (1998) Artificial intelligence: a new synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  30. Perry DE, Wolf AL (1992) Foundations for the study of software architecture. SIGSOFT Softw Eng Notes 17:40–52. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/141874.141884
  31. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1991) Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’91), pp 473–484Google Scholar
  32. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1992) An abstract architecture for rational agents. In: Rich C, Swartout W, Nebel B (eds) Proceedings of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR&R-92), pp 439–449Google Scholar
  33. van Riemsdijk B, van der Hoek W, Meyer JJC (2003) Agent programming in Dribble: from beliefs to goals using plans. In: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’03), ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, pp 393–400. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/860575.860639
  34. Russell S, Norvig P (2003) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaw M, Clements P (2006) The golden age of software architecture. IEEE Softw 23:31–39. doi:  10.1109/MS.2006.58
  36. Sloman A (1994) Semantics in an intelligent control system. Philos Trans R Soc Phys Sci Eng 349(1689):43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sloman A, Scheutz M (2002) A framework for comparing agent architectures. In: Proceedings of the UK workshop on computational intelligence UKCI’02, pp 169–176Google Scholar
  38. Wooldridge M (2000) Reasoning about rational agents. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of  NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations