A rational agent is one that does the right thing. Obviously, this is better than doing the wrong thing, but what does it mean? As a first approximation, we will say that the right action is the one that will cause the agent to be most successful. That leaves us with the problem of deciding how and when to evaluate the agent’s success.
We use the term performance measure for the how—the criteria that determine how successful an agent is. Obviously, there is not one fixed measure suitable for all agents. We could ask the agent for a subjective opinion of how happy it is with its own performance, but some agents would be unable to answer, and others would delude themselves. (Human agents in particular are notorious for “sour grapes”—saying they did not really want something after they are unsuccessful at getting it.) Therefore, we will insist on an objective performance measure imposed by some authority. In other words, we as outside observers establish a standard of what it means to be successful in an environment and use it to measure the performance of agents.
As an example, consider the case of an agent that is supposed to vacuum a dirty floor. A plausible performance measure would be the amount of dirt cleaned up in a single eight-hour shift. A more sophisticated performance measure would factor in the amount of electricity consumed and the amount of noise generated as well. A third performance measure might give highest marks to an agent that not only cleans the floor quietly and efficiently, but also finds time to go windsurfing at the weekend.
The when of evaluating performance is also important. If we measured how much dirt the agent had cleaned up in the first hour of the day, we would be rewarding those agents that start fast (even if they do little or no work later on), and punishing those that work consistently. Thus, we want to measure performance over the long run, be it an eight-hour shift or a lifetime.
We need to be careful to distinguish between rationality and omniscience. An omniscient agent knows the actual outcome of its actions, and can act accordingly; but omniscience is ; impossible in reality. Consider the following example: I am walking along the Champs Elysees one day and I see an old friend across the street. There is no traffic nearby and I’m not otherwise engaged, so, being rational, I start to cross the street. Meanwhile, at 33,000 feet, a cargo door falls off a passing airliner, and before I make it to the other side of the street I am flattened. Was I irrational to cross the street? It is unlikely that my obituary would read “Idiot attempts to crossstreet.” Rather, this points out that rationality is concerned with expected success given what has been perceived. Crossing the street was rational because most of the time the crossing would be successful, and there was no way I could have foreseen the falling door. Note that another agent that was equipped with radar for detecting falling doors or a steel cage strong enough to repel them would be more successful, but it would not be any more rational.
In other words, we cannot blame an agent for failing to take into account something it could not perceive, or for failing to take an action (such as repelling the cargo door) that it is incapable of taking. But relaxing the requirement of perfection is not just a question of being fair to agents. The point is that if we specify that an intelligent agent should always do what is actually the right thing, it will be impossible to design an agent to fulfill this specification—unless we improve the performance of crystal balls.
In summary, what is rational at any given time depends on four things:
This leads to a definition of an ideal rational agent: For each possible percept sequence, an ideal rational agent should do whatever action is expected to maximize its performance measure, on the basis of the evidence provided by the percept sequence and whatever built-in knowledge the agent has.
We need to look carefully at this definition. At first glance, it might appear to allow an agent to indulge in some decidedly underintelligent activities. For example, if an agent does not look both ways before crossing a busy road, then its percept sequence will not tell it that there is a large truck approaching at high speed. The definition seems to say that it would be OK for it to cross the road. In fact, this interpretation is wrong on two counts. First, it would not be rational to cross the road: the risk of crossing without looking is too great. Second, an ideal rational agent would have chosen the “looking” action before stepping into the street, because looking helps maximize the expected performance. Doing actions in order to obtain useful information is an important part of rationality.
The notion of an agent is meant to be a tool for analyzing systems, not an absolute characterization that divides the world into agents and non-agents. Consider a clock. It can be thought of as just an inanimate object, or it can be thought of as a simple agent. As an agent, most clocks always do the right action: moving their hands (or displaying digits) in the proper fashion. Clocks are a kind of degenerate agent in that their percept sequence is empty; no matter what happens outside, the clock’s action should be unaffected.
Well, this is not quite true. If the clock and its owner take a trip from California to Australia, the right thing for the clock to do would be to turn itself back six hours. We do not get upset at our clocks for failing to do this because we realize that they are acting rationally, given their lack of perceptual equipment.
The ideal mapping from percept sequences to actions
Once we realize that an agent’s behavior depends only on its percept sequence to date, then we can describe any particular agent by making a table of the action it takes in response to each possible percept sequence. (For most agents, this would be a very long list—infinite, in fact, unless we place a bound on the length of percept sequences we want to consider.) Such a list is called a mapping from percept sequences to actions. We can, in principle, find out which mapping correctly describes an agent by trying out all possible percept sequences and recording which actions the agent does in response. (If the agent uses some randomization in its computations, then we would have to try some percept sequences several times to get a good idea of the agent’s average behavior.) And if mappings describe agents, then ideal mappings describe ideal agents. Specifying which action an agent ought to take in response to any given percept sequence provides a design for an ideal agent.
This does not mean, of course, that we have to create an explicit table with an entry for every possible percept sequence. It is possible to define a specification of the mapping without exhaustively enumerating it. Consider a very simple agent: the square-root function on a calculator. The percept sequence for this agent is a sequence of keystrokes representing a number, and the action is to display a number on the display screen. The ideal mapping is that when the percept is a positive number x, the right action is to display a positive number z such that z 2 « x, accurate to, say, 15 decimal places. This specification of the ideal mapping does not require the designer to actually construct a table of square roots. Nor does the square-root function have to use a table to behave correctly: Figure 2.2 shows part of the ideal mapping and a simple program that implements the mapping using Newton’s method.
The square-root example illustrates the relationship between the ideal mapping and an ideal agent design, for a very restricted task. Whereas the table is very large, the agent is a nice, compact program. It turns out that it is possible to design nice, compact agents that implement the ideal mapping for much more general situations: agents that can solve a limitless variety of tasks in a limitless variety of environments. Before we discuss how to do this, we need to look at one more requirement that an intelligent agent ought to satisfy.
There is one more thing to deal with in the definition of an ideal rational agent: the “built-in knowledge” part. If the agent’s actions are based completely on built-in knowledge, such that it need pay no attention to its percepts, then we say that the agent lacks autonomy. For example, if the clock manufacturer was prescient enough to know that the clock’s owner would be going to Australia at some particular date, then a mechanism could be built in to adjust the hands automatically by six hours at just the right time. This would certainly be successful behavior, but the intelligence seems to belong to the clock’s designer rather than to the clock itself.
An agent’s behavior can be based on both its own experience and the built-in knowledge used in constructing the agent for the particular environment in which it operates. A system is autonomous to the extent that its behavior is determined by its own experience. It would be too stringent, though, to require complete autonomy from the word go: when the agent has had little or no experience, it would have to act randomly unless the designer gave some assistance. So, just as evolution provides animals with enough built-in reflexes so that they can survive long enough to learn for themselves, it would be reasonable to provide an artificial intelligent agent with some initial knowledge as well as an ability to learn.
Autonomy not only fits in with our intuition, but it is an example of sound engineering practices. An agent that operates on the basis of built-in assumptions will only operate successfully when those assumptions hold, and thus lacks flexibility. Consider, for example, the lowly dung beetle. After digging its nest and laying its eggs, it fetches a ball of dung from a nearby heap to plug the entrance; if the ball of dung is removed from its grasp en route, the beetle continues on and pantomimes plugging the nest with the nonexistent dung ball, never noticing that it is missing. Evolution has built an assumption into the beetle’s behavior, and when it is violated, unsuccessful behavior results. A truly autonomous intelligent agent should be able to operate successfully in a wide variety of environments, given sufficient time to adapt.