article

Modeling agents with a theory of mind: Theory--theory versus simulation theory

Authors:

Maaike Harbers,

Karel Van den Bosch,

John-Jules MeyerAuthors Info & Claims

Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, Volume 10, Issue 3

Pages 331 - 343

Published: 01 July 2012 Publication History

Abstract

Virtual training systems with intelligent agents provide an effective means to train people for complex, dynamic tasks like crisis management or firefighting. For successful training, intelligent virtual agents should be able to show believable behavior, adapt their behavior to the trainee's performance and give useful explanations about their behavior. Agents can provide more believable behavior and explanations if they, besides their own, take the assumed knowledge and intentions of other players in the scenario into account. This paper proposes two ways to model agents with a theory of mind, i.e. equip them with the ability to ascribe mental concepts such as knowledge and intentions to others. The first theory of mind model is based on theory--theory TT and the second on simulation theory ST. In a simulation study, agents with no theory of mind, a TT-based theory of mind, and an ST-based theory of mind are compared. The results show that agents with a theory of mind are preferred over agents with no theory of mind, and that, regarding agent development, the ST model has advantages over the TT model.

References

[1]

R. Aylett and S. Louchart, If I were you: Double appraisal in affective agents, in: Proc. of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Vol. 3, IFAAMAS, 2008, pp. 1233-1236.

[2]

S. Baron-Cohen, Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995.

[3]

G. Boella and L. Van der Torre, Groups as agents with mental attitudes, in: Proc. of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Vol. 2, IEEE Computer Society, 2004, pp. 964-971.

[4]

R. Bordini, J. Hubner and M. Wooldridge, Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason, Wiley, 2007.

Digital Library

[5]

T. Bosse, Z. Memon and J. Treur, A recursive BDI-agent model for theory of mind and its applications, Applied Artificial Intelligence 25(1) (2011), 1-44.

Digital Library

[6]

M. Bratman, Intention, Plans and Practical Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusets, 1987.

[7]

L. Braubach, A. Pokahr and W. Lamersdorf, Extending the capability concept for flexible BDI agent modularization, in: Proc. of ProMAS 2005, Springer, 2005, pp. 139-155.

[8]

P. Busetta, N. Howden, R. Rönnquist and A. Hodgson, Structuring BDI agents in functional clusters, in: Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Intelligent Agents VI, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Springer-Verlag, 2000, pp. 277-289.

[9]

P. Busetta, R. Rönnquist, A. Hodgson and A. Lucas, Jack intelligent agents - components for intelligent agents in Java, AgentLink News Letter, 1999.

[10]

P. Carruthers and P. Smith, Introduction, in: Theories of Theories of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 1-10.

[11]

P. Carruthers, Simulation and self-knowledge: A defence of the theory-theory, in: Theories of Theories of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 22-38.

[12]

B. Chrandrasekaran and J. Josephoson, Cognitive modeling for simulation goals: A research strategy for computer generated forces, in: Proc. of the 8th Computer Generated Forces and Behavioural Representation Conference, 1999, pp. 239-250.

[13]

M. Dastani, 2APL: A practical agent programming language, Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems 16(3) (2008), 214-248.

Digital Library

[14]

M. Dastani, Modular rule-based programming in 2APL, Handbook of Research on Emerging Rule-Based Languages and Technologies: Open Solutions and Approaches, A. Giurca, D. Gasevic and K. Taveter, eds, IGI Global, 2009, pp. 25-49.

[15]

A. Doniec, R. Mandiau, S. Piechowiak and S. Espié, Controlling non-normative behaviors by anticipation for autonomous agents, Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, IOS Press, 6(1) (2008), 29-42.

[16]

R. Flin and K. Arbuthnot, eds, Incident Command: Tales from the Hot Seat, Ashgate Publising, 2002.

[17]

P. Gmytrasiewicz and E. Durfee, A rigorous, operational formalization of recursive modeling, in: Proc. of the 1st International Conference on Mulitagent Systems, AAAI Press, 1995, pp. 125-132.

[18]

A. Goldman, In defence of the simulation theory, Mind and Language 7(1-2) (1992), 104-119.

[19]

D. Gomboc, S. Solomon, M.G. Core, H.C. Lane and M. van Lent, Design recommendations to support automated explanation and tutoring, in: Proc. of the 14th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation, Universal City, 2005.

[20]

R. Gordon, 'Radical' simulationism, Theories of Theories of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 11- 21.

[21]

M. Harbers, K. Van den Bosch and J.-J. Meyer, A methodology for developing self-explaining agents for virtual training, in: Proc. of Languages, Methodologies, and Development Tools for Multi-Agent Systems, 2009, pp. 168-182.

[22]

M. Harbers, K. Van den Bosch and J.-J. Meyer, Design and evaluation of explainable BDI agents, in: Proc. of International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, Vol. 2, IGI Global, 2010, pp. 125-132.

[23]

M. Harbers, K. Van den Bosch, and J.-J. Meyer, Agents with a theory of mind in virtual training, in: Multi-Agent Systems for Education and Interactive Entertainment: Design, Use and Experience, 2011, pp. 172-187.

[24]

S. Harmon, D. Hoffmann, A. Gonzalez, R. Knauf and V. Barr, Validation of human behavior representation, in: Proc. of Workshop on Foundations for Verification and Validation (VV) in the 21st Century, Society for Modeling and Simulation International, 2002, pp. 1-34.

[25]

J. Heal, Simulation, theory, and content, in: Theories of Theories of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 75-89.

[26]

A. Heuvelink, Cognitive models for training simulations, PhD Dissertation, VU University Amsterdam, 2009.

[27]

IEEE, Standard for a software quality metrics methodology, IEEE Std, 1998, pp. 1061-1998.

[28]

B. Keysar, S. Lin and D. Barr, Limits on theory of mind use in adults, Cognition 89(1) (2003), 25-41.

[29]

J. Laird, It knows what you're going to do: Adding anticipation to a Quakebot, in: Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001, pp. 385-392.

[30]

W.L. Johnson, Agents that learn to explain themselves, in: Proc. of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1994, pp. 1257-1263.

[31]

S. Nickerson, How we know -and sometimes misjudge- what others know: Imputing one's own knowledge to others, Psychological Bulletin 125(6) (1999), 737-759.

[32]

J. Perner, Simulation as explicitation of predication-implicit knowledge about the mind: Arguments for a simulation-theory mix, in: Theories of Theories of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 90-104.

[33]

C. Peters, Foundations of an agent theory of mind model for conversation initiation in virtual environments, in: Proc. of AISB 2005 Symposium on Virtual Social Agents, 2005, pp. 163-170.

[34]

A. Pokahr, L. Braubach and W. Lamersdorf, Jadex: A BDI Reasoning Engine, Kluwer Book, 2005.

[35]

D. Premack and G. Woodruff, Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4) (1978), 515-526.

[36]

D. Pynadath and S. Marsella, PsychSim: Modeling theory of mind with decision-theoretic agents, in: Proc. of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2005, pp. 1181-1186.

[37]

A. Rao and M. Georgeff, Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture, in: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc., 1991, pp. 473-484.

[38]

B. Scassellati, Theory of mind for a humanoid robot, Autonomous Robots 12(1) (2002), 13-24.

Digital Library

[39]

B. Steunebrink, M. Dastani and J.-J. Meyer, Emotions to control agent deliberation, in: Proc. of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Vol. 1, IFAAMAS, 2010, pp. 973-980.

[40]

K. Van den Bosch, M. Harbers, A. Heuvelink and W. Van Doesburg, Intelligent agents for training on-board fire fighting, in: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Digital Human Modeling, Springer, 2009, pp. 463-472.

Digital Library

[41]

M. Van Lent, W. Fisher and M. Mancuso, An explainable artificial intelligence system for small-unit tactical behavior, in: Proc. of IAAA 2004, AAAI Press, 2004, pp. 900-907.

[42]

H. Wimmer and J. Perner, Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception, Cognition 13(1) (1983), 103-128.

[43]

M. Xu, L. Padgham, A. Mbala and J. Harland, Tracking reliability and helpfulness in agent interactions, Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, IOS Press, 5(1) (2007), 31-46.

[44]

J. Yen, X. Fan and R. Volz, Information needs in agent teamwork, Web Intelligence and Agent Systems, IOS Press, 2(3) (2004), 231-248.

[45]

M. Young, Human performance model validation: One size does not fit all, in: Proc. of the 2003 Summer Computer Simulation Conference, 2003, pp. 732-736.

Cited By

Abdulrahman ARichards DBilgin A(2022)Exploring the influence of a user-specific explainable virtual advisor on health behaviour change intentionsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-022-09553-x36:1Online publication date: 1-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-022-09553-x
Shvo MKlassen TMcIlraith S(2020)Towards the Role of Theory of Mind in ExplanationExplainable, Transparent Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-51924-7_5(75-93)Online publication date: 9-May-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-51924-7_5
Lorini ERomero FElkind EVeloso MAgmon NTaylor M(2019)Decision Procedures for Epistemic Logic Exploiting Belief BasesProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3306127.3331789(944-952)Online publication date: 8-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3306127.3331789
Show More Cited By

Modeling agents with a theory of mind: Theory--theory versus simulation theory
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence

Recommendations

Modeling Agents with a Theory of Mind
WI-IAT '09: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 02

Training systems with intelligent virtual agents provide an effective means to train people for complex, dynamic tasks like crisis management or firefighting. Virtual agents provide more adequate behavior and explanations if they not only take their own ...
Domain‐specific modelling language for belief–desire–intention software agents

Development of software agents according to belief–desire–intention (BDI) model usually becomes challenging due to autonomy, distributedness, and openness of multi‐agent systems (MAS). Hence, here, a domain‐specific modelling language (DSML), called ...
Evaluation of virtual agents utilizing theory of mind in a real time action game
AAMAS '10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1

Within the domain of virtual agents, Theory of Mind reasoning is considered an important attribute to enable such agents to act in an intelligent fashion. Such ideas have been applied in various domains, ranging from serious games to virtual ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Web Intelligence and Agent Systems

Web Intelligence and Agent Systems Volume 10, Issue 3

July 2012

79 pages

ISSN:1570-1263

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

IOS Press

Netherlands

Publication History

Published: 01 July 2012

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 03 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Abdulrahman ARichards DBilgin A(2022)Exploring the influence of a user-specific explainable virtual advisor on health behaviour change intentionsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-022-09553-x36:1Online publication date: 1-Apr-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-022-09553-x
Shvo MKlassen TMcIlraith S(2020)Towards the Role of Theory of Mind in ExplanationExplainable, Transparent Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-51924-7_5(75-93)Online publication date: 9-May-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-51924-7_5
Lorini ERomero FElkind EVeloso MAgmon NTaylor M(2019)Decision Procedures for Epistemic Logic Exploiting Belief BasesProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3306127.3331789(944-952)Online publication date: 8-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3306127.3331789
Kampik TNieves JLindgren H(2019)Explaining Sympathetic Actions of Rational AgentsExplainable, Transparent Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-30391-4_4(59-76)Online publication date: 13-May-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-30391-4_4

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents