Cooperation is a complex task that necessarily involves communication and reasoning about others’ intentions and beliefs. Multi-agent communication languages aid designers of cooperating robots through standardized speech acts; sometimes including a formal semantics. But a more direct approach would be to have the robots plan both regular and communicative actions themselves. We show how two robots with heterogeneous capabilities can autonomously decide to cooperate when faced with a task that would otherwise be impossible. Request and inform speech acts are formulated in the same first-order logic of action and change as is used for regular actions. This is made possible by treating the contents of communicative actions as quoted formulas of the same language. The robot agents then use a natural deduction theorem prover to generate cooperative plans for an example scenario by reasoning directly with the axioms of the theory.
[1] James Allen. Natural Language Understanding. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA, 1988.
[2] Ernest Davis and Leora Morgenstern. A first-order
theory of communication and multi-agent plans. Journal of Logic and Computation, 15(5):701–749, 2005.
[3] Patrick Doherty. Reasoning about action and change
using occlusion. In Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence ECAI’94,
pages 401–405, 1994.
[4] Patrick Doherty and Jonas Kvarnstr¨om. Temporal action logics. In Vladimir Lifschitz, Frank van Harmelen,
and Bruce Porter, editors, Handbook of Knowledge Representation. Elsevier, 2007.
[5] Tim Finin, Jay Weber, Gio Wiederhold, Michael Genesereth, Richard Fritzson, Donald McKay, James McGuire, Richard Pelavin, Stuart Shapiro, and Chris Beck. Specification of the KQML agentcommunication language. Technical Report EIT TR
92-04, Enterprise Integration Technologies, Palo Alto,
CA, July 1993.
[6] Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. FIPA
communicative act library specification. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/, 2002.
[7] Michael R. Genesereth and Richard E. Fikes. Knowledge
interchange format, version 3.0 reference manual.
Technical Report Logic-92-1, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, June 1992.
[8] Michael R. Genesereth and Steven P. Ketchpel. Software agents. Communications of the ACM, 37(7):48–53, 1994.
[9] Jonas Kvarnstr¨om. VITAL: Visualization and implementation
of temporal action logics. http://www
ida.liu.se/˜jonkv/vital/, 2007.
[10] Martin Magnusson. Deductive Planning and Composite Actions in Temporal Action Logic. Licentiate
thesis, Linköping University, September
2007. http://www.martinmagnusson.com/publications/magnusson-2007-lic.pdf.
[11] Martin Magnusson and Patrick Doherty. Deductive
planning with inductive loops. In Gerhard Brewka
and Jérôme Lang, editors, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2008), pages 528–534. AAAI Press, 2008.
[12] Martin Magnusson and Patrick Doherty. Logical
agents for language and action. In Christian Darken
and Michael Mateas, editors, Proceedings of the 4th Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference AIIDE-08. AAAI Press, 2008.
[13] Martin Magnusson, Jonas Kvarnstr¨om, and Patrick Doherty. Abductive reasoning with filtered circumscription. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change NRAC 2009. UTSePress, 2009. Forthcoming.
[14] Robert Moore. Reasoning about knowledge and action. Technical Report 191, AI Center, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, October 1980.
[15] Leora Morgenstern. Knowledge preconditions for actions and plans. In Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 867–874, 1987.
[16] Leora Morgenstern. Foundations of a logic of knowledge, action, and communication. PhD thesis, New
York, NY, USA, 1988. Advisor: Ernest Davis.
[17] Francis Jeffry Pelletier. A brief history of natural deduction. History and Philosophy of Logic, 20:1–31,
1999.
[18] C. Raymond Perrault and James F. Allen. A planbased analysis of indirect speech acts. Computational Linguistics, 6(3-4):167–182, 1980.
[19] C. Raymond Perrault, James F. Allen, and Philip R.
Cohen. Speech acts as a basis for understanding
dialogue coherence. In Proceedings of the 1978 workshop on Theoretical issues in natural language processing, pages 125–132, Morristown, NJ, USA,
1978. Association for Computational Linguistics.
[20] John Pollock. Natural deduction. Technical report,
Department of Philosophy, University of
Arizona, 1999. http://www.sambabike.org/ftp/OSCAR-web-page/PAPERS/Natural-Deduction.pdf.
[21] John L. Pollock. Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for how to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
[22] Lance J. Rips. The psychology of proof: deductive reasoning in human thinking. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, USA, 1994.
[23] Erik Sandewall. Features and Fluents: The Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems, volume
1. Oxford University Press, 1994.
[24] John R. Searle. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969.
