Proactive Communicating Process with Asymmetry in Multiagent Systems

Table 1

Summary of notations.

Notation	Meaning
prop(𝑃)	prop(𝑃) stands for proposition that agent 𝐴 owns in its mental attitudes or knowledge base
Rule	The set of rules of agent
Rules(𝑝)	{𝑝𝑖|1≤𝑖≤𝑛,𝑝1∧𝑝2∧⋯∧𝑝𝑖∧⋯∧𝑝𝑛→𝑝∈Rule}
Bel(𝐴,𝑝,𝑡)	Agent 𝐴 believes that proposition 𝑝 holds at time 𝑡 [4, 6, 26, 27]
MB({𝐴,𝐵},𝑝,𝑡)	Both agents 𝐴 and 𝐵 believe that proposition p holds at time 𝑡 [4, 6, 26, 27]
Int.To(𝐴,𝛼,𝑡,𝑡𝛼,𝐶𝛼)	At time 𝑡, agent 𝐴 intends to do α at time 𝑡𝛼 in the context 𝐶𝛼 [3, 6]
Int.Th(𝐴,𝑝,𝑡,𝑡^′,𝐶𝑝)	Agent 𝐴 at time 𝑡 intends that p holds at 𝑡^′ under the intentional context 𝐶𝑝 [3, 6]
Pot.Int.To(𝐴,𝛼,𝑡,𝑡𝛼,𝐶𝛼)	Agent 𝐴 has a potential intention to do α. Compare with Int.to, potential intention means an agent is not fully committed, and 𝐴 needs to find out a plan to do α before changing potential intention into intention [3, 6]
Pot.Int.Th(𝐴,𝑝,𝑡,𝑡^′,𝐶𝑝)	Agent 𝐴 at time 𝑡 has a potential intention that p holds at 𝑡^′ under the intentional context 𝐶𝑝 [3, 6]
CBA(𝐴,𝛼,𝑅𝛼,𝑡𝛼,Θ𝛼)	Agent 𝐴 is able to bring about single-agent action α at 𝑡𝛼 under constraints Θα by following recipe 𝑅𝛼. Here a recipe is composed of action decomposition and constraints [3]
Do(𝐴,𝛼,𝑡,𝐶𝛼)	Agent 𝐴 performs action α at time under constraints Θ𝛼. [3]
Attempt(𝐴,𝜀,𝑃,𝑄,𝐶𝑛,𝑡,𝑡1)	Agent 𝐴 has only a limited commitment (potential intention) to the ultimate goal P by executing ε, while having a full-fledged intention to achieve 𝑄 [3]
Request(𝐴,𝐵,𝜀,𝛼,𝑡,𝑡𝑎,Θ𝛼)	Agent 𝐴’s attempt to make both 𝐴 and 𝐵 believe that 𝐴 intends that 𝐵 commits to performing the action ε [3]
Inform(𝐴,𝐵,𝜀,𝑝,𝑡,𝑡𝑎)	Agent 𝐴’s attempt to establish a mutual belief with agent 𝐵 about the 𝐴’s goal to let the addressee know 𝑝 is stand [3]
constr(𝐶)	Constraints component of context 𝐶 [3]
post(ε)	A conjunction of propositions that describe the effects of ε [3]
CONF	Conflictions exist between actions or propositions [3]