Design Considerations for COSA2

Stefan Brüggenwirth, Wolfgang Pecher and Axel Schulte

Institute of Flight Systems
Bundeswehr University
85577 Munich, Germany
{stefan.brueggenwirth, wolfgang.pecher, axel.schulte}@unibw.de

Abstract—In this article, we present the architectural and
algorithmic details for a COgnitive System Architecture that
uses a Centralized Ontology with Specific Algorithms (COSA2 ).
COSA2 is a layered intelligent agent framework on the basis of
the modified Rasmussen model of human performance. It encom-
passes integrated algorithmic support for goal-driven situation
interpretation, dynamic planning and plan execution, as well as
provisions for reactive behavior. A unique feature is the claim
for an expressive, centralized ontology representation, used by all
functions to ensure consistency. The framework is being applied
to different problems in the domain of uninhabited aerial vehicles.
The modeling and processing details described in this article are
illustrated by a simplified example from the intelligent onboard
systems management domain.
Keywords—Intelligent agents; Knowledge modeling; Plan exe-
cution, formation, and generation; Rule-based processing
I. I NTRODUCTION
describe each of its constituting subfunctions and the syntactic
and algorithmic details. Throughout the article we illustrate
the concepts by an example taken from the intelligent system
configuration management, described in depth in section IV.
The article concludes with open research questions.
II. T HE C OGNITIVE P ROCESS
The cognitive process describes the information processing
scheme that is used within the Cognitive System Architecture
(COSA). It is based on a model of human performance in
information processing published by J. Rasmussen [6] in 1983.
It furthermore serves as a guideline for knowledge acquisition
from domain experts and as an ontology guideline for domain
specific modeling.
Human Performance
procedure-based concept-based

NCREASING demand for highly automated, uninhabited

I COSA Concepts Motivational Contexts Task Options
matching goals & task
behaviour

systems requires the development of generic, yet flexible identification-

relevant Identification
concepts Goal constraints
Planning
agenda
Determination
software frameworks to provide these systems with intelligent cues

decision making capabilities. The Institute of Flight Systems Task Situations Procedures
current task action
has successfully applied its Cognitive System-Architecture Task Task
behaviour

(intent) instructions
Determination Execution
(COSA) [1] in various domains, ranging from multiple un- task-relevant
cues
inhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) guidance [2], [3] to intelligent
Cue Models Sensori-Motor Patterns
system configuration management [4]. Applications developed
skill-based
behaviour

Feature Action
for COSA follow a conceptual processing scheme, called Formation control-relevant cues Control
the cognitive process, that is meant to resemble the human
way of information processing. By using this analogy we sensations sensations
effector
Work commands
belief, that (1) the modeling and ontology creation by human Algorithmic classes within COSA: Environ-
ment
domain experts, as well as the interface to a human operator Inference-Based Search-Based Pattern-Based

may benefit from the semantics used in the cognitive process

and (2) intelligent agents using the COSA framework have
the ability to act in a flexible and comprehensible way. The
original COSA framework uses the cognitive processor Soar
[5] as a rule-based inference engine. Beside inference however,
it was found that the individual conceptual processing steps
specified in the cognitive process may benefit from further
algorithmic support provided by a generic cognitive system
architecture. In this article, we describe a novel COgnitive
System Architecture with a Centralized Ontology and Specific
Algorithms (COSA2 ) to facilitate each such processing step,
along with the embracing architecture to connect these sub-
processes into an intelligent processing framework.
This article is organized as follows: First, we describe
the cognitive process and the resulting overarching agent
architecture as the basis for the COSA2 framework. Then, we
Figure 1. The cognitive process illustrating the processing scheme of COSA2
A. The Modified Rasmussen-Scheme
The modified Rasmussen scheme [7] shown in Fig. 1,
laid the intellectual foundation in the attempt to establish
an analogous computation paradigm for intelligent software
agents. The inner, light-blue box represents the subset of
human cognitive capabilities that are algorithmically supported
by COSA2 . Note, that human skill-based behavior (e.g. visual
perception occurring as part of the human Feature Formation
process) is only partially covered by the architecture.
B. Related Work
From an agent-theoretical point of view, the approach
resembles a hybrid agent architecture [8] with horizontal

978-1-61284-060-4/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

layering, as found in Fergusons TouringMachines [9] or other
Three-Tier architectures [10]. The lowest layer (skill-based) is
reduced to converting subsymbolic input data to an abstract
symbolic representation (and vice versa). These symbols are
then fed in parallel into a reactive layer1 with prestored
procedures (procedure-based) and a deliberative, goal-oriented
layer (concept-based) comparable to a BDI-agent design [11],
augmented with dynamic planning capabilities [12], [13].
A major challenge for the centralized knowledge represen-
tation of COSA2 is a tight integration between action planning
and reasoning about the consequences within a single world
model. Among the first to address this issue was the possible
worlds approach by Ginsberg and Smith [14]. Classical plan-
ning languages like STRIPS [15] handle the framing problem
[16] well, but still suffer from the ramification problem [17].
That is, all consequences of executing an action, including
indirectly inferred effects, must explicitly be listed as postcon-
dition. Derived predicates, introduced later with the Planning
Domain Definition Language (PDDL) [18] help relief this
pitfall, but intentionally restrict the expressiveness of indirect
effects. A framework described in [19] uses PDDL techniques
and focuses on the dependencies between planning and plan
execution. A reactive planner, that can handle indirect effects
was developed by Williams [20] and applied in embedded
intelligent systems. The COSA2 framework offers the full
expressiveness of its inference engine to derive indirect effects.
C. Central Knowledge Representation
The cognitive process distinguishes static, a-priori knowl-
edge specified during design time (shown in blue in Fig. 1, e.g.
C ONCEPTS or TASK O PTIONS) and situational knowledge,
generated during runtime and stored in the agent’s working
memory (shown in red in Fig. 1, e.g. identification relevant
cues or matching concepts). Gray boxes in Fig. 1 represent
the cognitive subfunctions that constitute the cognitive process.
A cognitive subfunction performs a specific algorithm on the
basis of the indicated a-priori knowledge.
An important claim of the cognitive process is for a central
knowledge representation. This means, that both situational
and a-priori knowledge are specified exactly once, and acces-
sible from all the different subfunctions. As a consequence,
each cognitive subfunction may generally read all situational
knowledge elements available in working memory. However,
it writes specifically only into the situational knowledge in-
dicated by the outgoing arrow. For example, the cognitive
subfunction Identification, is implemented as an inference
algorithm which uses C ONCEPTS as a-priori knowledge. It
may read from anywhere in working memory (with its primary
source being identification relevant cues) and exclusively
modify the situational knowledge on matching concepts.
D. Functional Description of the Cognitive Processing Steps
Each cognitive subfunction is responsible for certain aspects
within the human cognition process. This analogy serves as a
1 Reactive behavior is not yet completely realized in our framework and
mentioned here for completeness
modeling guideline for the cognitive process and describes the
functional requirements on each cognitive subfunction.
1) Feature Formation: The human Feature Formation
process encompasses elaborate perception and signal process-
ing tasks, in order to assemble semantic information from
an initially unfiltered stream of sensations. Within COSA2
it is assumed that appropriate preprocessing steps take place
outside the framework, so that assigning meaningful symbols
to incoming input-data becomes trivial. Feature Formation
is then reduced to being the first subfunction, that starts
a new execution cycle by sampling the input interface of
the agent. It uses a-priori knowledge on C UE M ODELS to
transform subsymbolic, numeric input data from the work
environment into a symbolic representation. These symbols are
then provided as identification relevant cues to the concept-
based layer or as task-relevant cues to the procedure-based
layer. A CUE MODEL rule may for example specify that an
input voltage of 0-5V is translated into the ’low voltage’
symbol, which is then processed by subsequent subfunctions.
2) Identification: The Identification subfunction assembles
a high-level representation of the situation perceived by the
agent. Typically the subfunction matches upon identification
relevant cues created by the Feature Formation subfunction,
and applies its a-priori knowledge on C ONCEPTS to interrelate
these and expand a broader, comprehensive situational picture.
As shown in Fig. 2, the result is written into the matching
concepts namespace in working memory.
Concepts
C1
C2
..
Cn
.
Identification
identification- matching concept = C1
relevant cues
situational
feature space
Figure 2. Identification expands a comprehensive situational picture [7]
A well suited domain to demonstrate the strength of this
approach are network problems (e.g. a hydraulic network that
supplies pressure to an engine), in particular when it comes
to deriving internal network states (represented as matching
concepts) from measurable input sensory data (represented as
identification relevant cues). A class definition of a hydraulic
valve may for example contain two integer attributes, position
and power. A C ONCEPT may say that, if an instance of valve
in the closed position and powered on is matched in the
situational feature space, then the input pressure of the valve
will propagate through to the output side. There might also be
an embracing network class which can be used to infer internal
pressure states. Another example from the multi-UAV domain
might be the assessment of a tactical situation, where a rule
subsumes the existence of a close-by threat by instantiating a
matching concept ’danger’.
 3) Goal Determination: The concept-based layer of
COSA2 is driven by goals. The Goal Determination step
checks the perceived situation for a violation of desirable states
and constraints, modeled as M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS by
the designer. Like C ONCEPTS, these are described as classes,
with attributes to hold specific information on the goal and
rules, that describe the condition under which the goal be-
comes instantiated. The semantic is here, that an instance of
a goal in the working memory is created, when the agent is
in an undesirable state. This drives further action by the agent
to remove the goal-instance from the working memory.
A goal rule might for example specify that, if the engine in-
terface pressure is below 5 bar, then an instance of the supply-
engine-goal is created. Vice versa, the agent then knows that
it needs to take action in order to retract the instance of the
supply-engine-goal by taking the engine-interface pressure to
a value greater or equal than 5 bar.
4) Planning: Planning describes the problem of creating a
sequence of tasks, to be executed by the agent with the aim of
transitioning from the current environmental state into some
desired target state. The current environment state is primarily
described by the matching concepts, whereas the target state
results from the goals & constraints identified during the Goal
Determination phase. The set of possible actions of the agent
is described as TASK O PTIONS. If the planning process was
successful, a subset of these is selected for execution as entries
of the task agenda.
Once a task agenda is generated, the planning subfunction
is reduced to determining, whether the existent agenda is
still valid and progressing with its execution is still in line
with the goals. Comparable to the long-lasting intentions
of a BDI-agent design, we follow the convention to stick
to a generated agenda as long as possible. This avoids the
computationally expensive recomputation of a plan and gives
the framework a certain long-term momentum that prevents
numeric oscillations with minimal operational benefit.
Simulated Environment
Projection
Concepts Motivational Contexts
matching goals &
identification-
relevant Identification concepts Goal constraints
Determination
cues
Figure 3. The projection based planning approach reuses knowledge on
C ONCEPTS and M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS
The idea of central knowledge representation suggests that
a-priori knowledge used elsewhere to describe portions of the
ontology is reused when applicable. As shown in Fig. 3, the
projection based planning algorithm simulates the anticipated
effects, that a task executed by the agent would have on
the environment. The agent then interprets this projected
environment by its a-priori knowledge on C ONCEPTS and
M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS, i.e. the identical knowledge that
is used to interpret the perceived real world. The reuse of
this knowledge ensures consistency between the deliberation
process on future states during planning, and the reaction of
the agent to it, when the state will actually be encountered
during plan execution.
In the pressure network example above, the agent might
have two TASK O PTIONS: to command a valve to close
and to switch its power on. The valve needs power and a
command signal to switch to the closed position, otherwise it
remains open. If the valve is closed, then it cannot propagate
the pressure through to the engine interface, resulting in an
instance of the supply-engine goal. With this knowledge, the
planning subfunction can derive, that both TASK OPTIONS, to
command the valve to close and to power it on, are required
to satisfy the supply-engine goal.
5) Task Determination: According to Rasmussen [6], hu-
man behavior is dominated by routine procedures, optimized
with respect to every-day situations. This procedure-based
behavior increases performance in environments with recur-
ring situational patterns, that trigger a predetermined action-
sequence as reaction. In the modified Rasmussen scheme [7],
the task-determination subfunction is responsible for matching
such patterns (TASK S ITUATIONS) and associating with it a
predefined, routine action-procedure (not yet implemented).
This layer is also responsible for executing the task agenda,
generated by the Planning subfunction. The situational pattern
matching is here focused on recognizing task relevant cues,
that trigger the execution of the next task from the task agenda.
If, for example the task agenda requires a pump to be activated
after a certain valve is closed, Task Determination would
recognize the logical condition of the valve being closed and
initiate the procedure to activate the pump.
6) Task Execution: A high level task, such as a pump
activation procedure might be composed of several low-level
actions, that represent physical skills the agent is able to apply.
In our current implementation these are mostly realized by
the atomic instructions or commands available at the output
interface. The knowledge on P ROCEDURES is used to relate
tasks with sequences of such low-level actions.
7) Action Control: Once Task Execution has broken down
the current task into its low-level actions, the Action Control
Task Options subfunctions translates the action into subsymbolic, numeric
task
Planning
candidate instructions and sends them to the output interface. The
task Action Control subfunction is the equivalent to the Feature
agenda
Formation subfunction on the input-side.
III. I MPLEMENTATION OF C OGNITIVE S UBFUNCTIONS
Within the COSA2 framework, the cognitive subfunctions
used in the modified Rasmussen scheme are categorized into
three algorithmic classes, shown by the different shadings in
the blocks of Fig. 1 on page 1: Inference-based, search-based
and based on reactive pattern-matching. This reflects a general
division of the cognitive process into the functional building
blocks: situation identification, planning / decision and action
execution. For each of these functional blocks, there are
dedicated tools available: situation identification and selection
of goals is traditionally a BDI-agent domain [11], planning can
be accomplished by PDDL automated planning tools [18] and
plan execution languages like Plexil [21] perform the action.
COSA2 tries to combine the functional aspects into a uni-
fied framework, built around an expressive inference engine.
According to the processing specifics, the a-priori knowledge
representation of each subfunction differs semantically and
syntactically, while the situational knowledge is generally rep-
resented as a semantic net as explained in the next paragraph.
A. Working Memory Representation
The situational knowledge is split up into the individ-
ual namespaces ns = {IC, M C, GC, T A, T C, CT, AI}, as
shown in Fig.1 (e.g. identification relevant cues, in the fol-
lowing abbreviated as IC, or matching concepts M C). All
situational knowledge SK(t) available to the agent at a certain
time t during runtime forms the S working memory content
of the agent, W M = SK(t) = SKn (t). The working
n∈ns
memory is represented as a graph W M = (V, E) which
organizes the situational knowledge of the agent into an ob-
jected oriented, semantic net. Like in traditional objected ori-
ented programming languages, we distinguish between static,
prototypical class definitions and concrete instantiations of
these classes as unique objects. During runtime, the agent
may instantiate an arbitrary number of concrete objects from
these class templates, each in an individual state described by
the value of its attributes as shown in Fig. 4. Each instance
of an object is associated with a namespace and represented
as a vertex v ∈ V in working memory. Weighted edges
e ∈ E = (source ∈ V, target ∈ V, type, value) represent
the attributes of an object. Attributes hold a certain value
and may either be of a primitive type, such as I NTEGER or
S TRING, or may link to an instance of another class.
V1:Valve P1:Pump
string name = V1
connection
string name = P1
connection
int pos = 1 int speed = 10000
int cmd = 1 Int cmd = 10000
real p_in = 5 real p_in = 5
real p_out = 5 real p_out = 0
bool pwr = true bool pwr = false
Figure 4. A semantic net is used to describe the situational knowledge
Each edge in the WM graph represents a certain
fact in agent’s world knowledge. An edge e1 = Identification and Goal Determination use an inference
(valve1 , valve1 , pin , 5) may represent the fact, that valve1
has an attribute pin with the value 5, and e2 =
(valve1 , valve2 , connection, true) may indicate a connec-
tion by a link from valve1 to valve2 . A condition is a set
of propositional expressions connected by logical connec-
tives, that allow the matching of complex patterns including
AND, OR, NOT relationships and path-expressions. The cen-
tral pattern-matching algorithm for all cognitive subfunctions
GET M ATCHING I NSTANCES (condition, WM) search the WM
for all sets of facts, called instances, that match a certain
condition. For example, the condition “find a valve with
pin > 2 and a connection to valve2 ” returns the facts e1
and e2 . Note, that multiple combinations of facts may match
the condition, and are hence found as individual instances.
B. Inference-Based Cognitive Subfunctions
The three inference-based cognitive subfunctions Feature
Formation, Identification and Goal Determination provide
the symbolic situational understanding, including relevant
goals, necessary for subsequent decision and action processes.
1) Endsley’s Model of Situation Awareness: To illustrate
the design choices made for the inference-based subfunctions,
it is worthwhile looking at a different perspective on human
cognition based on Endsley’s model [22] (Fig. 5). The concept
focuses on the elements of situation awareness (SA) as ob-
served by human operators. It provides some analogies to the
inference-based cognitive subfunctions responsible within the
cognitive process to draw the situational picture. As shown in
the figure, she distinguishes three levels of SA with increasing
complexity.
Inference-Based Search-Based Pattern-based
Perception of
elements in
Comprehension
of current
Projection of
future status Planning
State of the Performance
situation and
environment
current situation
Decision
of actions
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
• Goals
• Objectives
• Expectations
Figure 5. Interpretation of situation awareness based on Endsley’s model
Level 1 simply represents the elementary building blocks
of a perceived situation, comparable to Identification Relevant
Cues generated by Feature Formation. Level 2 SA combines
the different elements to derive a comprehensive representation
of the situation, analogous to Matching Concepts as deduced
XF:Valve
by Identification. In addition, Endsley includes goals and
string name = XF objectives into level 2 SA, since they critically influence
int pos = 0
int cmd = 0 the interpretation of a situation. Finally, level 3 SA takes a
real p_in = 5
real p_out = 0
projection of future environment states into account. Based on
bool pwr = false this interpretation of Endsley’s model, Feature Formation,
Identification and Goal Determination create SA within the
cognitive process.
2) A-Priori Knowledge Representation: Within the cog-
nitive process, the three subfunctions Feature Formation,
mechanism to build up the situational understanding of the
agent, that sets the basis for subsequent computation processes.
Rule-based production systems have successfully been used in
expert systems and apply an inference mechanism to deduce
new information from a known set of facts. A production sys-
tem dynamically stores facts in its working memory, whereas
the production rules are static and specified in a production
memory. A rule-interpreter controls the application of rules
and resolves conflicting facts [23].
The a-priori knowledge for the inference-based subfunctions
is given as a set of class definitions. A class definition
encapsulates the attributes that describe the state of an object
and its behavior, expressed as production rules. A production
rule is an instruction that is generally given in the form:
rule : [name, priority] : if [condition] ⇒ then [action].
A rule is active for each instance in the WM, that matches
the rule condition (sec. III-A). Once the set of active rules
has been identified, the interpreter selects one and fires it
by applying the associated action. Actions can either create,
modify or delete facts in the WM. A regular rule is called
o-supported [5], that is, its modifications are permanent in
the WM. Modifications performed by i-supported rules on the
other hand are withdrawn (retracted), once the condition of
the rule is no longer valid in WM.
As indicated in sec. II-D3, a special semantic convention
for M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS applies: An object instance
in the goals & constraints namespace indicates a violated
constraint or an undesired state, that requires action by the
subsequent planning subfunction. It follows, that the condition
of a M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXT rule describes this undesired
state, and the action side instantiates a goal-class that describes
the violated goal or constraint further. Such a rule should be
i-supported, so that if the agent has reached a target state, the
condition does not match any longer and the goal-instance will
be retracted. The target state is therefore implicitly encoded
in the negation of a motivational context rule.
3) Algorithmic Details: COSA2 uses an graph-based infer-
ence engine, described in [24], [25]. Central to the algorithm
(Fig. 6) is a priority queue (RULE AGENDA), that stores an
ordered list of unchecked rules with modified conditions. The
interpreter removes the rule with the highest priority from the
RULE AGENDA and builds all active rule instances that match
the condition in the working memory. Each active instance is
then fired by applying it’s action and submitting the modified
facts to the working memory. All rules, that match on a
modified fact in their condition, need to be checked again,
and are therefore added to the RULE AGENDA based on their
priority. Once no more rules remain on the RULE AGENDA,
the cycle has reached the quiescence state. In this state, the
working memory content is considered updated and consistent
with the given knowledge in the rule base.
The cognitive processing cycle starts by sampling the input
interface and then calls I NFERENCE (C UE M ODELS ∪ C ON -
CEPTS ∪ M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS, WM) as described in
Fig. 6. Even though all rules are concurrently relevant, the
priority ranges are arranged as follows: Feature Formation
> Identification > Goal Determination rules. The rules are
therefore generally checked in that order, e.g. the first Goal
Determination rule is evaluated, after all active Identification
rules have fired. Note, that the algorithm may also switch back
to an earlier cognitive subfunction: If e.g. a Goal Determina-
tion rule modifies a condition of an Identification rule, that
rule will immediately be reevaluated, since its priority is higher
than all remaining Goal Determination rules. Once the last
Goal Determination rule has been considered, the inference
procedure has reached the quiescence state and the agent has
built up a representation of its environment, consistent within
its knowledge.
1: procedure I NFERENCE(knowledge, wm)
2: while ruleAgenda 6= empty do
3: rule ← DEQUEUE F RONT(ruleAgenda)
4: matches ← GET M ATCHING -
I NSTANCES(rule, wm)
5: for each instance in matches do
6: modF acts ← FIRE RULE(instance)
7: SUBMIT T OWM(modF acts, wm)
8: touchedRules ← GET T OUCHED -
C ONDITIONS(modF acts, knowledge)
9: ruleAgenda ← ADD(touchedRules)
10: end for
11: end while
12: end procedure
Figure 6. Inference algorithm used in COSA2
C. Search-Based Cognitive Subfunction
1) Planning: The planning subfunction is of special im-
portance, since it drives the decision on the actions performed
by the agent. In our implementation, planning combines state
space search with the inference algorithm mentioned in the
previous section. To comply with the claim for a central-
ized knowledge representation, we include the knowledge on
C ONCEPTS and M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS. As shown in
Fig. 3 on page 3, this is accomplished by projecting the
anticipated effects of executing a task candidate onto the cur-
rent environment. The resulting projected environment state is
then assessed by the Identification and Goal Determination
subfunctions, as if the state was in fact deduced from sensory
data of the real world. If the projected environment satisfies all
goals, then the task candidates applied on the way are stored as
the new task agenda. Otherwise, the search process continues
by evaluating the remaining task candidates, applicable in the
projected environment state. Finding a plan (of a given length)
is generally NP-hard [26]. Our approach aims at problems,
which include complex patterns (represented as graphs) that
describe key features in the environment, but a low branching
factor in the search space of tasks.
2) A-Priori Knowledge Representation: The a-priori
knowledge relevant for planning is stored as TASK O PTIONS.
A TASK OPTION is represented in the form: task: [name] :
(preconditions, effects). The preconditions define
a pattern of facts related by logical connectives, which needs
to be matched in the WM to enable the execution of the
task. Accordingly, one task option might enable multiple task
instances, if different object instances match its precondition.
The effects describe the anticipated postcondition, that would
occur after the task has been executed. Effects are expressed
as modifications of facts in the WM. All facts matched
as precondition can be accessed from the effects-side of a
task. This allows a task option to be dynamically enabled,
parameterized and/or applied upon different objects.
Simulated Environment Rules: The projection loop is closed
inside the concept-based layer, that is, on a task basis, instead
of low-level actions as shown in Fig. 3 on page 3. However,
since the tasks are only applied ’virtually’, we have introduced for as long as possible. An agenda could be invalidated for
a new type of simulated-environment rules, which serve as a two reasons: (1) the goals for which it was created changed
substitute of the real work environment (and the lower levels). and (2) by significant changes in the environment. Tracing
These rules take as condition e.g. an actuator command and the goals is simple, whereas detecting significant changes in
simulate the expected reaction of the actuator to it, by moving the environment is usually intractable. For this reason, the
the actuator into the commanded position. following reverse approach was taken: If a task agenda exists,
Assuming that the inference of rules and application of the planning subfunctions projects the remaining tasks in it
outgoing commands happens instantaneously and without from the current situation forward, and checks if it still satisfies
failure as anticipated, the simulated environment rules have all goals & constraints. If the existent agenda is still valid, then
two significant properties: First, they determine the temporal the environment had not significantly changed with respect to
properties of the agenda, by the duration that the expected the agenda. This forward projection algorithm takes only linear
environment reaction takes. Secondly, these rules allow to time.
monitor for exogenous events, happening in the real envi-
ronment, that create a situation that is different from the 1: procedure P LANNING(knowledge, wm)
anticipation. Hence, each simulated-environment rule can be 2: if FWD P ROJECTION V LD(taskAgenda, wm) then
used to monitor for failures, either by explicit monitoring 3: return taskAgenda . Retain active agenda
points or a maximum duration after which a time-out occurs. 4: end if
The reaction to a failed environment rule is domain-specific: 5: wmCopy ← wm . Save original WM
A hardware failure might have caused the timeout and simu- 6: level ← 0
lated behavior should be adapted. The simulated environment 7: while SKGC 6= empty do
rule for example, that moved the actuator into the commanded 8: for each taskOption in knowledge do
position could be modified to reflect a jam in a certain 9: matches ← GET M ATCHING -
position. In other cases, the timeout might have been caused I NSTANCES(taskOption, wm)
by exogenous events, e.g. a slight delay on a flight leg due 10: end for
to wind, it might be sufficient to replan again from the new 11: for each instance in matches do
situation. 12: ef f ects ← APPLY TASK(instance)
13: SUBMIT T OWM(ef f ects, wm)
3) Algorithmic Details: Conceptually, the approach can be
simplified to the following GraphPlan [27] style algorithm: 14: modF acts ← INFERENCE(C ONCEPTS ∪
The planning algorithm has two phases and starts with the M OTIVATIONAL C ONTEXTS, wm)
current WM content, which is restored later, when the planning 15: addedBy ← (modF acts | instance | level)
subfunction is completed. During the first phase the planning 16: end for
graph is constructed (in polynomial time), which holds all 17: end while
the facts, that could be achieved by the execution of TASK 18: wm ← wmCopy . Restore original WM
O PTIONS. Constructing the planning graph is comparable to 19: taskAgenda ← EXTRACT P LAN(addedBy, wm)
a breadth-first search, in which the effects of all enabled task 20: return taskAgenda
instances are added to the WM. The newly added facts are then 21: end procedure
interpreted by the Identification subfunction and evaluated by Figure 8. Projection-based planning algorithm used in COSA2
Goal Determination for a goal state. If there are unsatisfied
goals, the search continues by applying the set of tasks that
D. Reactive Pattern-Based Cognitive Subfunctions
became enabled in the new state.
Otherwise, the algorithm proceeds to the plan extraction The subfunctions based on reactive pattern matching pro-
phase (which is not described here in detail for briefness). vide a direct connection between the matching of a condition
This phase is can be seen as a backward-search in the planning in the WM and an associated reaction. Reactive, procedure-
graph, which collects all required tasks that had to be added based behavior, without the time consuming deliberation pro-
in order to reach the goal state from the start. Besides simple cess required for concept-based behavior, provides a quick,
backtracking, COSA2 can extract a plan by recasting the pre-stored response to a matched situation. Currently, this
planning graph as a constraint satisfaction problem or in reactive behavior is only used to detect cues that trigger the
the PDDL [18] notation. As shown in Fig. 8, the planning next step in the task agenda.
algorithm reuses portions of the inference algorithm in Fig. 6. 1) A-Priori Knowledge Representation: Internally, the a-
The PLANNING (TASKO PTIONS, WM) function is called priori knowledge is represented as if-then rules. However, most
after the inference based subfunctions have completed. As portions are automatically generated from relevant, existent a-
described in sec. III-B2, the goal-state for planning is by priori knowledge to comply with the claim for a centralized
convention determined by object instances of goals & con- knowledge representation, as follows:
straints, hence a valid agenda leads to state, in which the Task Determination The necessary condition for the selec-
situational knowledge on goals & constraints (SKGC ) is tion of the current task is, that its preconditions taken from
empty. Once a task agenda is found, COSA2 sticks to it, TASK O PTIONS, are fulfilled. Out of all TASK O PTIONS, it is
sufficient to select only those, which are next to be executed the networks that supply the general systems, by rerouting
according to the task agenda. The selected tasks are then add power to avoid load peaks or use redundancies for failed
to a dedicated WM element for execution. components. We have stripped down a complex problem to
Task Execution The condition matches on the dedicated the simple network shown in Fig 10.
WM element that represents the current tasks and executes
code to fan out associated sequences of low-level actions. Pump
V1 Eng1
1
Action Control This subfunction is reduced to execute code
to send data to the agent’s output interface. XF

pwr
1: procedure R EACTIVE PATTERN(knowledge, wm)
2: for each rule in knowledge do
Pump
3: matches ← GET M ATCHING - 2
V2 Eng2

I NSTANCES(rule, wm)
4: end for Figure 10. A simple network problem illustrating an aircraft fuel system
5: for each instance in matches do
6: modF acts ← FIRE RULE(instance) The following code summarizes the examples given in the
7: SUBMIT T OWM(modF acts, wm) descriptions of each cognitive subfunction.
8: end for
• A class template for a valve has the following attributes:
9: end procedure
C LASS Valve:
Figure 9. Reactive pattern matching algorithm used in COSA2 ATTRIBUTES :
int pos;
2) Algorithmic Details: The implementation of R EAC - int cmd;
TIVE PATTERN (TASK S ITUATIONS, WM) can be seen as a real p_in;
single-step inference algorithm, as shown in Fig. 9. real p_out;
Task Determination identifies the current task by calling • A C UE M ODEL is used to derive a higher, symbolic
the procedure ReactivePattern based on the a-priori knowledge representation of the input voltage.
on TASK S ITUATIONS. Once the current task is selected, the RULE readInpCmd:
Task Execution subfunctions initiates the associated P ROCE - if (U_in ≥ 0) ∧ (U_in < 5) then U_in_s ← low_voltage;
DURE . A procedure is implemented as code fragment, that is • The behavior of the valve might be described by a
parameterized by the matching elements from the WM. By CONCEPT rule like this:
default, this code executes a sequence of actions, but may be RULE behPos1:
extended to perform pre-coded automation functions. Finally, if (pos = 1) then p_out← p_in;
Action Control represents the output interface to the work • A simulated environment rule describes the anticipated
environment. reaction of a valve to a commanded position.
IV. A N A PPLICATION E XAMPLE RULE behFollowCmd:
In the following section, we present portions of a real world if (pwr) ∧ (cmd) then pos ←cmd;
application to illustrate the semantic details of the different • The action performed by the agent to command valve on

subfunctions as described above. The example application is (off) are described as TASK O PTIONS:
inspired by an application that is relevant in the context of the TASK CmdVlvOn (Off ):
More Electric Aircraft (MEA) [28]. MEA allows aircraft to use preCondition: cmd = 0 (1);
electricity as a single form of energy to operate the general effect: cmd ← 1 (0);
systems, e.g. actuators, pumps or the environmental control • Finally, a P ROCEDURE subsumes a sequence of low level
system. This enables a flexible, intelligent reconfiguration of commands that realize the execution of a task:

Task Options SimEnv Concepts Goals

Vlv1.cmd=1 Vlv.pos=1
CmdVlvOn VlvFollowCmd Vlv.pout=5
VlvBehPos1
Vlv2.cmd=1 Vlv.pos=1
CmdVlvOn VlvFollowCmd Vlv.pout=5 SupplyEngines (R)
ElecSw.pos=1 VlvBehPos1
ElecSw.cmd=1
CmdElecSwOn ElecSwFollowCmd
ElecSw.pos=1

Figure 7. Resulting task agenda for portions of the MEA problem

P ROCEDURE activatePump:
1. @0s switchOn ElecSw_Pmp_Pwr
2. @2s sendCmd Pmp Cntr ON
3. @5s sendCmd Pmp Speed 10000
Figure 7 shows an agenda for the simple network problem
mentioned above as it will be displayed during task execution
at runtime. The agenda was created by the planning subfunc-
tion, starting from a condition where both pumps have already
been activated and the goal to supply both engines with fuel.
Note the different cognitive subfunctions in the projection:
Three TASK O PTIONS have already been executed by the
agent, i.e. the electrical switch and the valves have been com-
manded to 1. During the planning process these tasks triggered
the simulated-environment rules to project that the valves will
follow those commands. As noted in sec. III-C2, simulated
environment rules have a temporal extension. In the example,
this is reflected by the running timer bar on VlvFollowCmd
on valve 2, indicating that the valve has not yet reached the
commanded position. Once this condition is observed at the
input interface of the agent, the C ONCEPTS rule VlvBehPos1
will derive the internal output pressure Vlv.pout=5. This will
eventually lead to the retraction of the SupplyEngines goal,
which marks the target state.
V. C ONCLUSIONS
In this article, we presented the architectural and algorithmic
concepts for a new cognitive system architecture (COSA2 ).
The architecture is an attempt to build an intelligent agent
framework on the basis of the modified Rasmussen model of
human performance. It encompasses unified functions for goal-
driven situation interpretation, planning and plan execution.
A unique feature is the claim for a centralized knowledge
representation, enabling the reuse of knowledge modeled once,
whenever applicable to ensure consistency. Three algorithmic
classes (inference based, search based and based on reactive
pattern matching) have been identified and prototypically
implemented to close the loop on deliberative behavior. The
integration of a reactive layer and its interaction with deliber-
ative behavior is subject to current research.
Future areas of application for COSA2 will be in the field
of assistant systems and task-based UAV guidance. This
effort also encompasses the integration of the framework with
airborne hardware and sensors, to evaluate the performance
of the architecture in real-world scenarios.
R EFERENCES
[1] H. Putzer and R. Onken, “Cosa–a generic cognitive system architecture
based on a cognitive model of human behavior,” Cognition, Technology
& Work, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 140–151, 2003.
[2] A. Schulte, C. Meitinger, and R. Onken, “Human factors in the guidance
of uninhabited vehicles: Oxymoron or tautology? the potential of cogni-
tive and co-operative automation,” in International Journal on Cognition
Technology & Work. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2008.
[3] J. Uhrmann, R. Strenzke, and A. Schulte, “Task-based guidance of
multiple detached unmanned sensor platforms in military helicopter
opertations,” in Proceedings of the Cognitive Systems with Interactive
Sensors (COGIS) Conference, Crawley, UK.
[4] W. Pecher, S. Bruggenwirth, and A. Schulte, “Using cognitive automa-
tion for aircraft general systems management,” in System of Systems
Engineering (SoSE), 2010 5th International Conference on. IEEE,
2010, pp. 1–8.
[5] J. E. Laird, A. Newell, and P. S. Rosenbloom, “Soar : An architecture
for general intelligence,” in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, 1987, pp. 1–64.
[6] J. Rasmussen, “Skills, rules and knowledge, signals, signs and symbols,
and other distinctions in human performance models,” in IEEE Trans-
actions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. SMC-13. Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer, 1983, pp. 257–266.
[7] R. Onken and A. Schulte, System-Ergonomic Design of Cognitive
Automation: Dual-Mode Cognitive Design of Vehicle Guidance and
Control Work Systems. Springer Verlag, 2010.
[8] M. Wooldridge, An introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, 2009.
[9] I. A. Ferguson, “Touringmachines: An architecture for dynamic, rational,
mobile agents,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1992, clare
Hall.
[10] E. Gat et al., “On three-layer architectures,” Artificial intelligence and
mobile robots, 1998.
[11] M. Bratman, Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University
Press Cambridge, MA, 1987.
[12] A. Walczak, L. Braubach, A. Pokahr, and W. Lamersdorf, “Augmenting
bdi agents with deliberative planning techniques,” Programming Multi-
Agent Systems, pp. 113–127, 2007.
[13] F. Meneguzzi, A. Zorzo, and M. da Costa Mora, “Propositional planning
in bdi agents,” in Proceedings of the 2004 ACM symposium on Applied
computing, Nicosia, Cyprus.
[14] M. Ginsberg and D. Smith, “Reasoning about action i:: A possible
worlds approach,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 165–195,
1988.
[15] R. Fikes and N. Nilsson, “STRIPS: A new approach to the application
of theorem proving to problem solving,” Artificial intelligence, vol. 2,
no. 3-4, pp. 189–208, 1971.
[16] J. McCarthy, P. Hayes, and S. U. C. D. O. C. SCIENCE., Some
philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence.
Stanford University, 1968.
[17] J. Finger and S. U. C. D. O. C. SCIENCE., Exploiting constraints in
design synthesis. Dept. of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1987.
[18] M. Fox and D. Long, “Pddl2. 1: An extension to pddl for expressing
temporal planning domains,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research,
vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 61–124, 2003.
[19] O. Despouys and F. Ingrand, “Propice-plan: Toward a unified framework
for planning and execution,” Recent Advances in AI Planning, pp. 278–
293, 2000.
[20] B. Williams and P. Nayak, “A reactive planner for a model-based
executive,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth international joint conference
on Artifical intelligence-Volume 2. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.,
1997, pp. 1178–1185.
[21] V. Baskaran, M. Dalal, T. Estlin, C. Fry, R. Harris, M. Iatauro, and J,
“Plan execution interchange language (plexil).”
[22] M. R. Endsley and D. J. Garland, Situation Awareness Analysis and
Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
[23] T. Johnson, “Control in act-r and soar,” in Proceedings of the Nineteenth
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society: August 7-10, 1997,
Stanford University. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, p. 343.
[24] S. Brueggenwirth, R. Strenzke, A. Matzner, and A. Schulte, “A generic
cognitive system architecture applied to the multi-uav flight guidance
domain,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence and Agents (ICAART 2010), Crawley, UK.
[25] A. Matzner, M. Minas, and A. Schulte, “Efficient graph matching
with application to cognitive automation,” in Applications of Graph
Transformations with Industrial Relevance. Berlin, Germany: Springer,
2008, pp. 297–312.
[26] T. Bylander, “The computational complexity of propositional STRIPS
planning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 69, no. 1-2, pp. 165–204, 1994.
[27] A. Blum and M. Furst, “Fast planning through planning graph analysis*
1,” Artificial intelligence, vol. 90, no. 1-2, pp. 281–300, 1997.
[28] W. Pecher, “Das technologieprogramm more electric aircraft bei eads-
mas,” in Wehrtechnisches Symposium: Moderne Energietechnik in der
Bundeswehr, Mannheim, Germany, 2009.