A key advantage the reactive planning approach adopted by BDI-based agents is the ability to recover from plan execution failures, and almost all BDI agent programming languages and platforms provide some form of failure handling mechanism. In general, these consist of simply choosing an alternative plan for the failed subgoal (e.g., JACK, Jadex). In this paper, we propose an alternative approach to recovering from execution failures that relies on exploiting positive interactions between an agent's intentions. A positive interaction occurs when the execution of an action in one intention assists the execution of actions in other intentions (e.g., by (re)establishing their preconditions). We have implemented our approach in a scheduling algorithm for BDI agents which we call SP. The results of a preliminary empirical evaluation of SP suggest our approach out-performs existing failure handling mechanisms used by state-of-the-art BDI languages. Moreover, the computational overhead of SP is modest.

Before deploying a software system we need to assure ourselves (and stakeholders) that the system will behave correctly. This assurance is usually done by testing the system. However, it is intuitively obvious that adaptive systems, including agent-based systems, can exhibit complex behaviour, and are thus harder to test. In this paper we examine this "obvious intuition" in the case of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents, by analysing the number of paths through BDI goal-plan trees. Our analysis confirms quantitatively that BDI agents are hard to test, sheds light on the role of different parameters, and highlights the enormous difference made by failure handling.

Before deploying a software system we need to assure ourselves (and stakeholders) that the system will behave correctly. This assurance is usually done by testing the system. However, it is intuitively obvious that adaptive systems, including agent-based systems, can exhibit complex behaviour, and are thus harder to test. In this paper we examine this "obvious intuition" in the case of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents. We analyse the size of the behaviour space of BDI agents and show that although the intuition is correct, the factors that influence the size are not what we expected them to be. Specifically, we found that the introduction of failure handling had a much larger effect on the size of the behaviour space than we expected. We also discuss the implications of these findings on the testability of BDI agents.

Note that this extra to make decisions about which plans are used to information is included as a preference rather than a goal, achieve their goals. Usually the choice of which as it is acceptable to satisfy the goal without satisfying the plan to use to achieve a particular goal is left up preference. For example, if the user prefers to fly on Dodgy to the system to determine. In this paper we show Airlines, but no such flights are available, then specifying this how preferences, which can be set by the user of the as a preference means that the user can still have a holiday; system, can be incorporated into the BDI execution specifying this as a goal would mean that the user refuses to process and used to guide the choices made.