An Integrated Formal Framework for Reasoning about Goal Interactions

  • Michael Winikoff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7169)


One of the defining characteristics of intelligent software agents is their ability to pursue goals in a flexible and reliable manner, and many modern agent platforms provide some form of goal construct. However, these platforms are surprisingly naive in their handling of interactions between goals. Most provide no support for detecting that two goals interact, which allows an agent to interfere with itself, for example by simultaneously pursuing conflicting goals. Previous work has provided representations and reasoning mechanisms to identify and react appropriately to various sorts of interactions. However, previous work has not provided a framework for reasoning about goal interactions that is generic, extensible, formally described, and that covers a range of interaction types. This paper provides such a framework.


Multiagent System Operational Semantic Plan Body Belief Base Primitive 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.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Winikoff, M.: Goals in agent systems: A unifying framework. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 713–720 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. Wiley (2007) ISBN 0470029005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Busetta, P., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A., Lucas, A.: JACK Intelligent Agents - Components for Intelligent Agents in Java. Technical report, Agent Oriented Software Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia (1998),
  4. 4.
    Dastani, M.: 2APL: a practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 16(3), 214–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L.: Computationally effective reasoning about goal interactions. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 1–40 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thangarajah, J., Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Fischer, K.: Avoiding resource conflicts in intelligent agents. In: van Harmelen, F. (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 18–22. IOS Press (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting and exploiting positive goal interaction in intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 401–408. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting and avoiding interference between goals in intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 721–726 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shaw, P.H., Bordini, R.H.: Towards Alternative Approaches to Reasoning About Goals. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4897, pp. 104–121. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J., Thangarajah, J.: Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2002), Toulouse, France, pp. 470–481 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sardiña, S., Padgham, L.: A BDI agent programming language with failure handling, declarative goals, and planning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 23(1), 18–70 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI Agents Speak Out in a Logical Computable Language. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1038, pp. 42–55. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sardina, S., Padgham, L.: Goals in the context of BDI plan failure and planning. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 16–23 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Plotkin, G.: Structural operational semantics (lecture notes). Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University (1981(reprinted 1991))Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clement, B.J., Durfee, E.H.: Identifying and resolving conflicts among agents with hierarchical plans. In: AAAI Workshop on Negotiation: Settling Conflicts and Identifying Opportunities, Technical Report WS-99-12 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clement, B.J., Durfee, E.H.: Theory for coordinating concurrent hierarchical planning agents using summary information. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 495–502 (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horty, J.F., Pollack, M.E.: Evaluating new options in the context of existing plans. Artificial Intelligence 127(2), 199–220 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Yorke-Smith, N.: A soft COP model for goal deliberation in a BDI agent. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Constraint Modelling and Reformulation, ModRef (September 2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winikoff, M.: An AgentSpeak Meta-interpreter and Its Applications. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 123–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations