This paper considers the semantics of the agent communication language KQML. By using this language for communication, agents will be able to request and provide services. Indeed, numerous projects have shown how the language can profitably support interoperation among distributed agents. However, before becoming a widely-accepted standard, it would be worthwhile to examine the language in detail, especially the semantical issues it raises. This paper identifies numerous difficulties with the language, and an attempt is made to point to their resolution. The paper illustrates the kind of semantics we believe to be necessary to characterize agent communication languages, identifies an important adequacy condition "compositionality" and shows how to compose a question from a request and an inform. Finally, the paper discusses possible impacts to be felt on various KQML decisions from the semantical issues raised here.

Abstract 1 This paper presents a tripartite model of dialogue in which three different kinds of actions are modeled: domain actions, problem-solving actions, and dis-course or communicative actions. We contend that our process model provides a more finely differenti-ated representation of user intentions than previous models; enables the incremental recognition of com-municative actions that cannot be recognized from a single utterance alone; and accounts for implicit acceptance of a communicated proposition. 1

Abstract not found

We present a formalization of the Recursive Modeling Method, which we have previously, somewhat informally, proposed as a method that autonomous artificial agents can use for intelligent coordination and communication with other agents. Our formalism is closely related to models proposed in the area of game theory, but contains new elements that lead to a different solution concept. The advantage of our solution method is that always yields the optimal solution, which is the rational action of the agent in a multi-agent environment, given the agent's state of knowledge and its preferences, and that it works in realistic cases when agents have only a finite amount of information about the agents they interact with. Introduction Since its initial conceptual development several years ago (Gmytrasiewicz, Durfee, & Wehe 1991a; 1991b), the Recursive Modeling Method (RMM) has provided a powerful decision-theoretic underpinning for coordination and communication decisionmaking, including dec...

This paper presents a computational model of how conversational participants collaborate in making referring expressions. The model is based on the planning paradigm. It employs plans for constructing and recognizing referring expressions and meta-plans for constructing and recognizing clarifications. This allows the model to account for the generation and understanding both of referring expressions and of their clarifications in a uniform framework using a single knowledge base.

Abstract not found

For many linguists interested in pragmatics, including the Prague School theorists,

THE aim of this thesis is to investigate logical formalisms for describing, reasoning about, specifying, and perhaps ultimately verifying the properties of systems composed of multiple intelligent computational agents. There are two obvious resources available for this task. The first is the (largely AI) tradition of reasoning about the intentional notions (belief, desire, etc.). The second is the (mainstream computer science) tradition of temporal logics for reasoning about reactive systems. Unfortunately, neither resource is ideally suited to the task: most intentional logics have little to say on the subject of agent architecture, and tend to assume that agents are perfect reasoners, whereas models of concurrent systems from mainstream computer science typically deal with the execution of individual program instructions. This thesis proposes a solution which draws upon both resources. It defines a model of agents and multi-agent systems, and then defines two execution models, which ...

this paper is inspired by philosophical work, it is squarely motivated by the concerns of building intelligent systems that are capable of collaborative behavior, either with a user, or with other such systems. Still, we hope that the paper sheds light on philosophical issues, and treats the subject of joint action at a sufficiently precise level to be illuminating of problems that any philosophical account needs to confront. An important consequence of focusing on joint actions, rather than solely on individual actions, is the opportunity to rethink related theories. In particular, we claim that speech act theory will need to be recast in light of joint action theory since many of the basic illocutionary acts (e.g., requests, promises) are intimately involved in eatablishing, monitoring, and discharging joint activities. However, despite this tight relationship, no existing speech act theory provides guidance on this connection. This paper takes a first step in the direction of linking speech act theory and joint action theory by showing how various speech acts can be used to form and disband teams. It is by now commonplace to observe that joint action is different from a collection of individual actions, even if they are coordinated. Agents can be acting in a coordinated fashion, as in ordinary automobile traffic, but not be acting together. Conversely, agents can be acting together, but not be coordinated except at the start and end of their joint action (e.g, see [36]) The key property distinguishing joint or collaborative action from mere coordinated action is the joint mental state of the participants. The best way to explore what this mental state must be is to imagine a joint action going astray. Our favorite example is driving in a convoy, versus ordinary traff...

We use the idea that actions performed in a conversation become part of the common ground as the basis for a model of context that reconciles in a general and systematic fashion the differences between the theories of discourse context used for reference resolution, intention recognition, and dialogue management. We start from the treatment of anaphoric accessibility developed in DRT, and we show first how to obtain a discourse model that, while preserving DRT's basic ideas about referential accessibility, includes information about the occurrence of speech acts and their relations. Next, we show how the different kinds of `structure' that play a role in conversation -- discourse segmentation, turn-taking, and grounding -- can be formulated in terms of information about speech acts, and use this same information as the basis for a model of the interpretation of fragmentary input.