Ability in a multi-agent context: A model in the situation calculus

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 3900 LNAI, Issue , 2006, Pages 23-36

  Cholvy, Laurence ^a   Garion, Christophe ^b   Saurel, Claire ^a  

^a ONERA   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTATION THEORY; COMPUTER SCIENCE; CONTEXT SENSITIVE LANGUAGES; LOGIC PROGRAMMING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

SITUATION CALCULUS;

MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS;

EID: 33745625920     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11750734_2     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. B. Chaib-Draa and R. Demolombe. L'interaction comme champ de recherche. Information - Interaction - Intelligence, numéro spécial Modèles Formels de l'Interaction, pages 5-24, 2001.
2. B.F. Chellas. Modal logic. An introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1980.
3. L. Cholvy and G. Garion. Distribution of goals addressed to a group of agents. In J. S. Rosenschein, T. Sandholm, M. Wooldridge, and M. Yokoo, editors, Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 765-772. ACM Press, July 2003.
4. P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42:213-261, 1990.
5. R. Demolombe. Formalisation en logique des interactions entre agents: quels concepts formaliser? Technical report, ONERA/DTIM, 2000. In French.
6. R. Demolombe and E. Hamon. What does it mean that an agent is performing a typical procedure: a formal definition in the Situation Calculus. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference an Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'02), pages 905-911, Bologna, Italy, 2002.
7. D. Elgesem. The modal logic of agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(2):1-46, 1997.
8. B.J. Grosz, L. Hunsberger, and S. Kraus. Planning and acting together. AI Magazine, 20(4):23-34, 1999.
9. D. Harel. Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, volume 2, pages 497-604. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984.
10. J.F. Horty. Agency and obligation. Synthese, 108:269-307, 1996.
11. J.F. Horty and N. Belnap. The deliberative stit: a study of action, omission, ability and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24:583-644, 1995.
12. Reprinted in The Philosopher's Annual, Volume 18-1995, Ridgeview Publishing Company, 1997.
13. Y. Lespérance, H.J. Levesque, F. Lin, and R.B. Scherl. Ability and knowing how in the situation calculus. Studia Logica, 66(1):165-186, oct 2000.
14. H.J. Levesque, R. Reiter, Y. Lespérance, F. Lin, and R. Scherl. GOLOG: A logic programming language for dynamic domains. Journal of Logic Programming, 31:59-84, 1997.
15. J. MacCarthy and P. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In D. Michie and B. Melzer, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463-502. Edinburgh University Press, 1969.
16. M. Pauly. A modal logic for conditional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(1):149-166, 2000.
17. R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359-380. Academic Press, New York, 1991.
18. R. Thomason. Ability, action and context. Presentation at the Temporality and Discourse Context: Dynamic and Modal Approaches Workshop, 2001.
19. B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer. Formalizing abilities and opportunities of agents. Fundamenta Informaticae, 34(1-2):53-101, 1998.