Intentional Agents in Defense

  • Emiliano Lorini
  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4324)


Multi-agent systems (MAS) should not be conceived as only cooperative. As open systems situations of concurrence, competition and conflict often arise. Starting from this perspective it is relevant not only pro-social interaction modeling, but also a theory of trust and monitoring, giving special relevance to issues of security and defense: how can an agent prevent that dangerous actions of other agents and dangerous events will frustrate his goals? In this paper some relevant concepts for a general model of defense in intentional agents are analyzed and formally specified. Moreover an ontology of defensive goals and defensive strategies is studied.


Modal Logic Linear Temporal Logic Dangerous Situation Dynamic Logic Front Door 
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.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Conflicts ontology. In: Dieng, R., Meller, H. (eds.) Conflicts in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 21–40. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burrows, M., Abadi, M., Needham, R.: A logic for authentication. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 426, 233–271 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dixon, C., Gago, M.-C.F., Fisher, M., van der Hoek, W.: Using temporal logics of knowledge in the formal verification of security protocols. In: Proceedings eleventh International Symposium on temporal representation and reasoning. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Syverson, P.: Adding time to a logic of authentication. In: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Glasgow, J., MacEwen, G., Panangaden, P.: A logic to reason about security. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 10(3), 226–264 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics. North-Holland Pub. Co./MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42, 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press, New York (1962)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Broersen, M.: Modal Action Logics for Reasoning about Reactive Systems. PhD-thesis Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Castilho, M.A., Gasquet, O., Herzig, A.: Formalizing action and change in modal logic i: the frame problem. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(5), 701–735 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herzig, A., Longin, D.: C&L intention revisited. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C., Williams, M.A. (eds.) Proceedings 9th Int. Conf. on Principles on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2004), pp. 527–535. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, K., Sandu, G.: Weak commitments. In: Holmstron-Hintikka, G., Tuomela, R. (eds.) Contemporary Action Theory. Social Action, vol. 2. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sahlqvist, H.: Completeness and correspondence in the first and second order semantics for modal logics. In: Proceedings 3rd Scandinavian Logic Symposium 1973. Studies in Logic, vol. 82 (1975)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Castelfranchi, C., Lorini, E.: Cognitive anatomy and functions of expectations. In: Schmalhofer, F., Young, R.M., Katz, G. (eds.) Proceedings European Cognitive Science Conference 2003 (EuroCogSci 2003). Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Cognitive and social action. London University College of London Press, London (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Walton, D.: Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. State University of New York Press, Albany (1992)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schelling, T.C.: The strategy of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1960)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Searle, J.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grice, H.P.: Study in the way of words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emiliano Lorini
    • 1
  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies-CNRRomaItaly

Personalised recommendations