DOC PREVIEW
UCF EEL 5937 - Agent communication

This preview shows page 1-2-23-24 out of 24 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 24 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Agent communicationSpeech actsSpeech acts (cont’d)Slide 4Slide 5Relationship between the performative and contentSemantics of speech actsPlan based semanticsAgent communication languagesKQMLFIPA ACL, introductionBasic structure of a FIPA messageExamplePerformatives in FIPAInform and RequestInformRequestFIPA ACL, Semantic Language, SLInteraction protocolsProtocols standardized by FIPASlide 21Missing from the specificationInternal state of agents during a conversationManaging multiple conversationsEEL 5937Agent communicationEEL 5937 Multi Agent SystemsLotzi BölöniEEL 5937Speech acts•Most treatments of communication in multi-agent systems borrow their inspiration from speech act theory•Speech act theories are pragmatic theories of language; they attempt to account for how language is used by people every day to achieve their goals and intentions.•The origins of speech act theories are usually traced to J.L. Austin’s book “How to do things with words”. –This is a philosophy book with a linguistic approach–Not a computer science book!EEL 5937Speech acts (cont’d)•Austin noticed that some utterances are rather like “physical actions”, that appear to change the state of the world•Paradigm examples would be:–Declaring war–“I now pronounce you man and wife”•But more generally, everything we utter is uttered with the intention of satisfying some goal or intention•A theory of how utterances are used to achieve intentions is a speech act theory.EEL 5937Speech acts (cont’d)•Searle (1969) identified various types of speech acts:•Representatives–Such as informing: “It is raining”•Directives–Attempts to get the hearer to do something, e.g. “please make the tea”•Commisives–Which commit the speaker to doing something, e.g. “I promise to” •Expressives:–Whereby a speaker expresses a mental state, e.g. “Thank you!”•Declarations:–Such as declaring a warEEL 5937Speech acts (cont’d)•There is some debate about whether this (or any!) typology of speech acts is appropriate•In general, a speech act can be seen to have two components:–A performative verb (e.g. request, inform)–A propositional content (e.g. “the door is closed”)EEL 5937Relationship between the performative and content•Performative = Request–Content = “The door is closed”–Speech act = “please close the door”•Performative = Inform–Content = “The door is closed”–Speech act = “The door is closed!”•Performative = Inquire–Content = “The door is closed”–Speech act = “Is the door closed?”EEL 5937Semantics of speech acts•How can one define the semantics of a speech act?•What is going to be the affect of the speech act to the world?–More exactly to the receiver?•The sender agent can not (generally) force a receiver agent to accept some desired mental state. •Different formalisms were proposed, depending on the representation of the world.EEL 5937Plan based semantics•Cohen & Perrault (1979) defined the semantics of speech acts using the precondition-delete-add list formalism of planning research. •Semantics for a request: request(s, r, a)•Preconditions:–S believes r can do h »You don’t ask someone to do something unless you think they can do it–S believes h believes h can do a»You don’t ask someone unless they believe they can do it–S believes S wants a»You don’t ask someone unless you want it•Postconditions:–H believes s believes s wants a»The effect is to make them aware of your desire.EEL 5937Agent communication languages•We now consider the agent communication languages (ACL’s), standard formats for the exchange of messages.•KQML•FIPA-ACLEEL 5937KQML•Developed by the ARPA knowledge sharing initiative•Composed of two parts:•Knowledge Query and Manipulation Language (KQML)–KQML is an “outer language”, that defines various acceptable “communicative acts” or performatives–Many critics say there were too many performatives (>40)•Knowledge Interchange Format (KIF)–The content language usually used by KQMLEEL 5937FIPA ACL, introduction•FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents) non-profit organization–Companies like IBM, Hitachi, HP, British Telecom, Siemens–Universities and research institutes•Started work on a program of agent standards, the most important being the ACL (1997)EEL 5937Basic structure of a FIPA message•Performative–There are 20 different performatives in FIPA-ACL•Housekeeping–Sender–Receiver–Reply-with–In-reply-to•Content–The actual content of the message•Language–The language in which the content is written•Ontology–The ontology in which the message needs to be interpreted.EEL 5937Example(inform:sender agent1 :receiver agent2 :content (price milk 100) :language sl :ontology hlp-auction)EEL 5937Performatives in FIPAEEL 5937Inform and Request•Inform and Request are the two basic performatives in FIPA ACL.•All others are macro definitions, defined in terms of these. •The meanings of inform and request are defined in two parts:–Pre-condition: what must be true in order for the speech act to succeed–Rational effect: what the sender hopes that the message will bring about.EEL 5937Inform•The content is a statement•Pre-conditions:–The sender holds that the content is true–Intends that the recipient believes the content–Does not already believe that the recipient is aware of whether the content is true or not.EEL 5937Request•The content is an action. •Pre conditions:–The sender intends the action content to be performed–Believes the recipient is capable of performing the action–Does not believe that the sender already intends to perform the action.EEL 5937FIPA ACL, Semantic Language, SL•Used to define the semantics of FIPA ACL•Quantified, multi-modal logic with operators for beliefs, desires, uncertain beliefs and intentions•Can represent propositions, objects and actionsEEL 5937Interaction protocols•A standard set of messages needed to achieve a certain goal•They are usually describing a time limited “conversation”EEL 5937Protocols standardized by FIPA•FIPA Request•FIPA Query•FIPA Request When•FIPA Contract Net•FIPA Iterated Contract Net•FIPA English Auction•FIPA Dutch Auction•FIPA Brokering•FIPA Recruiting•FIPA Subscribe•FIPA Propose Interaction•http://www.fipa.org/repository/ips.php3EEL 5937EEL 5937Missing from the


View Full Document

UCF EEL 5937 - Agent communication

Documents in this Course
Load more
Download Agent communication
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Agent communication and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Agent communication 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?