1 / 90

Combining agents into societies

Combining agents into societies. Luís Moniz Pereira. Centro de Inteligência Artificial – CENTRIA Universidade Nova de Lisboa. DEIS, Università di Bologna, 22 Marzo 2004. Summary. Goal and motivation Overview of MDLP ( M ulti- D imensional LP )

kane
Download Presentation

Combining agents into societies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Combining agents into societies Luís Moniz Pereira Centro de Inteligência Artificial – CENTRIA Universidade Nova de Lisboa DEIS, Università di Bologna, 22 Marzo 2004

  2. Summary • Goal and motivation • Overview of MDLP (Multi-Dimensional LP) • Combining inter- and intra-agent societal viewpoints • An architecture for evolving Multi-Agent viewpoints • A logical framework for modelling societies • Future work and conclusion

  3. Goal Explore the applicability of MDLP to represent multiple agents’ view of societal knowledge dynamics and evolution • The representation is the core of the agent architecture and system MINERVA. • It was designed with the aim of providing a common agent framework based on the strengths of Logic Programming.

  4. Motivation - 1 • The notion of agency has claimed a major role in modern AI research • LP and non-monotonic reasoning are appropriate for rational agents: • Utmost efficiency is not always crucial • Clear specification and correctness are crucial • LP provides a general, encompassing, rigorous declarative and procedural framework for rational functionalities

  5. Motivation - 2 • Till recently, LP could be seen as good for representing static non-contradictory knowledge. • In the agency paradigm we need to consider: • Ways of integrating knowledge from different sources evolving in time • Knowledge expressing state transitions • Knowledge about environment and societal evolution, and each agent’s own behavioural evolution • LP declaratively describes states well. • But LP must describe state transitions too.

  6. MDLP overview • DLP synopsis • MDLP motivation • MDLP semantics • Multiple representational dimensions in a multi-agent system • Representation prevalence • Overview conclusions

  7. Dynamic LP • DLP was introduced to express LP’s linear evolution in dynamic environments, via updates • DLP gives semantics to sequences of GLPs • Each program represents a distinct state of knowledge, where states may specify: • different time points, different hierarchical instances, different viewpoints, etc. • Different states may have mutually contradictory or overlapping information, and DLP determines the semantics for each state sequence

  8. L2 L1 L1 L2 MDLP Motivating Example • Parliament issues law L1 at time t1 • A local authority issues law L2 at time t2 > t1 • Parliamentary laws override local laws, but not vice-versa: • More recent laws have precedence over older ones: • How to combine these two dimensions of knowledge precedence? • DLP with Multiple Dimensions (MDLP)

  9. MDLP • In MDLP knowledge is given by a set of programs • Each program represents a different piece of updating knowledge assigned to a state • States are organized by a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) representing their precedence relation • MDLP determines the composite semantics at each state, according to the DAG paths • MDLP allows for combining knowledge updates that evolve along multiple dimensions

  10. Generalized Logic Programs • To represent negative info in LP updates, we need LPs allowing not in heads • Programs are sets of generalized LP rules: A ¬ B1,…, Bk, not C1,…,not Cm not A ¬ B1,…, Bk, not C1,…,not Cm • The semantics is a generalization of SMs

  11. MDLP - definition • Definition: A Multi-Dimensional Dynamic Logic Program, P, is a pair (PD, D) where: • D= (V, E) is an acyclic digraph • PD= { PV : v  V} is a set of generalized logic programs indexed by the vertices of D

  12. j1 j2 j3 s MDLP - semantics 1 • Definition: Let P=(PD,D) be a MDLP. An interpretation Ms is a stable model of the multi- dimensional update at state sV iff, where Ps= is Pi: Ms= least( [Ps – Reject(s, Ms)]  Defaults (Ps, Ms) )

  13. j1 j2 j3 s MDLP - semantics 2 Ms= least( [Ps – Reject(s, Ms)]  Defaults (Ps, Ms) ) where: Reject(s, Ms) = {r Pi | r’ Pj , ijs, head(r)=not head(r’)  Ms |=body(r’)} Defaults (Ps, Ms) = {not A | $r Ps: head(r)=A  Ms |=body(r)}

  14. MDLP for Agents • Flexibility, modularity, and compositionality of MDLP makes it suitable for representing the evolution of several agents’ combined knowledge How to encode, in a DAG, the relationships among every agent’s evolving knowledge along multiple dimensions ?

  15. Hierarchy of agents Temporal evolution of one agent Two basic dimensions of a multi-agent system How to combine these dimensions into one DAG ?

  16. Equal Role Representation • Assigns equal role to the two dimensions:

  17. Equal Role - 2 • In legal reasoning: • Lex Superior : rules issued by a higher authority override those of a lower one • Lex Posterior : more recent rules override older ones • It potentiates contradiction: • There are many pairs of unrelated programs

  18. Time Prevailing Representation • Assigns priority to the time dimension:

  19. Time Prevailing - 2 • Useful in very dynamic situations, where competence is distributed, i.e. ¹ agents normally provide rules about ¹ literals • Drawback: • It requires all agents to be fully trusted, since all newer rules override older ones irrespective of their mutual hierarchical position

  20. Hierarchy Prevailing Representation • Assigns priority to the hierarchy dimension:

  21. Hierarchy Prevailing - 2 • Useful when some agents are untrustworthy • Drawback: • One has to consider the whole history of all higher ranked agents in order to accept/reject a rule from a lower ranked agent However, techniques are being developed to reduce the size of a MDLP (garbage collection).

  22. A sub-agent Hierarchy Inter- and Intra- Agent Relationships • The above representations refer to a community of agents • But they can be used as well for relating the several sub-agents of an agent

  23. Intra- and Inter- Agent Example • Prevailing hierarchy for inter-agents • Prevailing time for sub-agents

  24. Current work of overview • A MINERVA agent: • Is based on a modular design • It has a common internal KB (a MDLP), concurrently manipulated by its specialized sub-agents • Every agent is composed of specialized sub-agents that execute special tasks, e.g. • reactivity • planning • scheduling • belief revision • goal management • learning • preference evaluation • strategy

  25. MDLP overview conclusions • We’ve explored MDLP to combine knowledge from several agents and multiple dimensions • Depending on the situation, and relationships among agents, we’ve envisaged several classes of DAGs for their encoding • Based on this work, and on a language (LUPS) for specifying updates by means of transitions, we’ve launched into the design of an agent architecture MINERVA

  26. Evolving multi-agent viewpoints – one more overview • Our agents • Framework references • Mutually updating agents • MDLP synopsis • Agent language: projects and updates • Agent knowledge state and agent cycle • Example • An implemented example architecture • Future work

  27. Our agents We propose a LP approach to agents that can: • ReasonandReact to other agents • Update their own knowledge, reactions, and goals • Interact by updating the theory of another agent • Decide whether to accept an update depending on the requesting agent • Capture the representation of social evolution

  28. Updating agents • Updating agent:a rational, reactive agent that can dynamically change its own knowledge and goals • makes observations • reciprocally updates other agents with goals and rules • thinks (rational) • selects and executes an action (reactive)

  29. Multi-Dimensional Logic Programming • In MDLP knowledge is given by a set of programs. • Each program represents a different piece of updating knowledge assigned to a state. • States are organized by a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) representing their precedence relation. • MDLP determines the composite semantics at each state according to the DAG paths. • MDLP allows for combining knowledge updates that evolve along multiple dimensions.

  30. New contribution • To extend the framework of MDLP with integrity constraints and active rules. • To incorporate the framework of MDLP into a multi-agent architecture. • To make the DAG of each agent updatable.

  31. DAG A directed acyclic graph DAGis a pair D = (V, E) where V is a set of vertices and E is a set of directed edges.

  32. Agent’s language Atomic formulae: Aobjective atoms not Adefault atoms i:Cprojects iC updates Formulae: generalized rules Li is an atom, an update or a negated update A ¬ L1 Ù...Ù Ln not A ¬ L1 Ù...Ù Ln Zj is a project integrity constraint false ¬ L1 Ù...Ù Ln Ù Z1 Ù...Ù Zm active rule L1 Ù...Ù Ln  Z

  33. Projects and Updates A projectj:Cdenotes the intention of some agent i of proposing the updating the theory of agent j with C. iCdenotes an update proposed by i of the current theory of some agent j with C. fredC wilma:C

  34. Agents’ knowledge states • Knowledge states represent dynamically evolving states of agents’ knowledge. They undergo change due to updates. • Given the current knowledge state Ps , its successor knowledge state Ps+1 is produced as a result of the occurrence of a set of parallel updates. • Update actions do not modify the current or any of the previous knowledge states. They only affect the successor state: the precondition of the action is evaluated in the current state and the postcondition updates the successor state.

  35. Agent’s language A projecti:Ccan take one of the forms: i:( A ¬ L1 Ù...Ù Ln ) i:( not A ¬ L1 Ù...Ù Ln ) i:( false ¬ L1 Ù...Ù Ln Ù Z1 Ù...Ù Zm ) i:( L1 Ù...Ù Ln  Z ) i:( ?- L1 Ù...Ù Ln ) i:edge(u,v) i:not edge(u,v)

  36. Initial theory of an agent A multi-dimensional abductive LP for an agent  is a tuple: T =  D, PD, A, RD - D = (V, E) is a DAG s.t. ´V (inspection point of ). - PD = {PV | vV} is a set of generalized LPs. - A is a set of atoms (abducibles). • RD = {RV | vV} is a set of set of active rules.

  37. The agent’s cycle • Every agent can be thought of as an abductive LP equipped with a set of inputs represented as updates. • The abducibles are (names of) actions to be executed as well as explanations of observations made. • Updates can be used to solve the goals of the agent as well as to trigger new goals.

  38. alfredo´ judge mother father alfredo girlfriend state 0 Happy story - example DAG of Alfredo inspection point of Alfredo The goal of Alfredo is to be happy

  39. Happy story - example alfredo´ judge hasGirlfriend ¬ not happy  father : (?-happy) not happy  mother : (?-happy) getMarried Ù hasGirlfriend  girlfriend : propose moveOut  alfredo : rentApartment custody(judge,mother)  alfredo : edge(father,mother) {moveOut, getMarried} mother father alfredo girlfriend abducibles state 0

  40. Happy story - example alfredo´ judge hasGirlfriend ¬ not happy  father : (?-happy) not happy  mother : (?-happy) getMarried Ù hasGirlfriend  girlfriend : propose moveOut  alfredo : rentApartment custody(judge,mother)  alfredo : edge(father,mother) {moveOut, getMarried} mother father alfredo girlfriend state 0

  41. Agent theory The initialtheoryof an agent  is a multi-dimensional abductive LP. Let an updating programbe a finite set of updates, and S be a set of natural numbers. We call the elements sS states. An agent  at state s, written s , is a pair (T,U): - T is the initial theory of . - U={U1,…, Us} is a sequence of updating programs.

  42. Multi-agent system A multi-agent systemM={1s ,…, ns }at states is a set of agents 1,…,n at state s. M characterizes a fixed society of evolving agents. The declarative semantics of M characterizes the relationship among the agents in M, and how the system evolves. The declarative semantics is stable models based.

  43. Happy story - 1st scenario Suppose that at state 1, Alfredo receives from the mother: mother  (happy ¬ moveOut) mother  (false ¬ moveOut Ù not getMarried) mother  (false¬nothappy) and from the father: father  (happy ¬ moveOut) father  (not happy ¬ getMarried)

  44. Happy story - 1st scenario alfredo´ false¬nothappy happy ¬ moveOut false ¬ moveOut Ù not getMarried judge mother father happy ¬ moveOut not happy ¬ getMarried alfredo In this scenario, Alfredo cannot achieve his goal without producing a contradiction. Not being able to make a decision, Alfredo is not reactive at all. girlfriend state 1

  45. Happy story - 2nd scenario Suppose that at state 1 Alfredo’s parents decide to get divorced, and the judge gives custody to the mother. judge  custody(judge,mother)

  46. Happy story - 2nd scenario alfredo´ custody(judge,mother) judge hasGirlfriend ¬ not happy  father : (?-happy) not happy  mother : (?-happy) getMarried Ù hasGirlfriend  girlfriend : propose moveOut  alfredo : rentApartment custody(judge,mother)  alfredo : edge(father,mother) mother father alfredo girlfriend state 1

  47. Happy story - 2nd scenario alfredo´ Note that the internal update produces a change in the DAG of Alfredo. judge mother father Suppose that when asked by Alfredo, the parents reply in the same way as in the 1st scenario. alfredo girlfriend state 2

  48. Happy story - 2nd scenario alfredo´ false¬nothappy happy ¬ moveOut false ¬ moveOut Ù not getMarried judge mother father happy ¬ moveOut not happy ¬ getMarried alfredo Now, the advice of the mother prevails over and rejects that of his father. girlfriend state 2

  49. Happy story - 2nd scenario alfredo´ Thus, Alfredo gets married, rents an apartment, moves out and lives happily ever after. judge hasGirlfriend ¬ not happy  father : (?-happy) not happy  mother : (?-happy) getMarried Ù hasGirlfriend  girlfriend : propose moveOut  alfredo : rentApartment custody(judge,mother)  alfredo : edge(father,mother) mother father alfredo girlfriend state 2

  50. Syntactical transformation The semantics of an agent  at state s, s=(T,U), is established by a syntactical transformation  that maps s into an abductive LP:  s = P,A,R 1.s P´,A,R P´ is a normal LP, A and R are a set of abducibles and active rules. 2.Default negation can then be removed from P´ via the abdual transformation (Alferes et al. ICLP99, TCLP04): P´  P P is a definite LP.

More Related