ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
On the semantics of conditional commitment
Full text PdfPdf (240 KB)
Source International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems table of contents
Hakodate, Japan
SESSION: Agent communication table of contents
Pages: 1337 - 1344  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-303-4
Authors
Shakil M. Khan  Toronto, ON, Canada
Yves Lespérance  Toronto, ON, Canada
Sponsors
IFMAS : The International Foundation for Multiagent Systems
ATAL : The International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages
SIGART: ACM Special Interest Group on Artificial Intelligence
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 5,   Downloads (12 Months): 37,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1160633.1160883
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we identify some problems with current formalizations of conditional commitments, i.e. commitments to achieve a goal if some condition becomes true. We present a solution to these problems. We also formalize two types of communicative actions that can be used by an agent to request another agent to achieve a goal or perform an action provided that some condition becomes true. Our account is set within ECASL [9], a framework for modeling communicating agents based on the situation calculus.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
 
3
P. Cohen and H. Levesque. Rational interaction as the basis for communication. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communication, pages 221--255. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1990.
 
4
 
5
Foundations for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA communicative act library specification, document 37. 1997--2002.
 
6
P. Gardenfors. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.
7
 
8
S. Khan. A situation calculus account of multiagent planning, speech acts, and communication, MSc Thesis (in preparation), 2005.
9
 
10
G. Lakemeyer and H. Levesque. AOL: A logic of acting, sensing, knowing, and only-knowing. In Proc. of KR-98, pages 316--327, 1998.
 
11
H. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lespérance, F. Lin, and R. Scherl. Golog: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. J. of Logic Programming, 31:59--84, 1997.
 
12
J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4:463--502, 1969.
 
13
R. Moore. A formal theory of knowledge and action. Formal Theories of the Commonsense World, pages 319--358, 1985.
 
14
G. Plotkin. A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI-FN-19, Computer Science Dept., Aarhus University, Denmark, 1981.
 
15
A. Rao and M. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In R. Fikes and E. Sandewall, editors, Proc. of KR&R-91, pages 473--484, 1991.
 
16
 
17
 
18
D. Sadek. Communication theory = rationality principles + communicative act models. In Proc. of AAAI-94 Workshop on Planning for Interagent Comm., 1994.
 
19
D. Sadek and P. Bretier. ARTIMIS: Natural dialogue meets rational agency. In Proc. of IJCAI-97, pages 1030--1035, 1997.
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
R. Smith. The contract net protocol: High level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-29(12):1104--1113, 1980.
 
28


Collaborative Colleagues:
Shakil M. Khan: colleagues
Yves Lespérance: colleagues