A Comparative Study of Programming Agents in POSH and GOAL

Rien Korstanje, Cyril Brom, Jakub Gemrot, Koen V. Hindriks


A variety of agent programming languages have been proposed but only few comparative studies have been performed to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these languages. In order to gain a better understanding of features in and their use by programmers of these languages, we perform a study which compares the two languages GOAL and POSH. The study aims at advancing our knowledge of the benefits of using agentoriented languages and at contributing to the evolution of these languages. The main focus of the study is on the usability of both languages and the differences between novice and more advanced programmers that use either language. As POSH requires Java programming experience, we expected novice POSH programmers to perform better on the tasks than novice GOAL programmers whereas we hypothesized this difference would not be observed between more advanced programmers. However, results suggest that there is no significant difference. The study does suggest that general experience and tooling support can make a difference. Analysis of the tasks and the observations made about the use of the languages, moreover, suggests ways to improve the experimental design in such a way that differences in usability of the frameworks could be established.


  1. Behrens, T. M., Hindriks, K. V., and Dix, J. (2011). Towards an environment interface standard for agent platforms. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 61(4):261-295.
  2. Bída, M. and Brom, C. (2010). Emohawk: learning virtual characters by doing. Interactive Storytelling, pages 271-274.
  3. Bordini, R., Dastani, M., Dix, J., and El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (2009). Multi-agent programming: Languages, tools and applications, Vol. 15. Berlin: Springer.
  4. Bordini, R., Dastani, M., Dix, J., and Seghrouchni, A. E. F., editors (2005). Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer.
  5. Brom, C. (2009). Curricula of the course on modelling behaviour of human and animal-like agents. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Science Education Research Conference, volume 22, page 24.
  6. Brom, C., Gemrot, J., Bida, M., Burkert, O., Partington, S., and Bryson, J. (2006). Posh tools for game agent development by students and non-programmers. In 9th international conference on computer games: Ai, animation, mobile, educational & serious games, pages 126-135.
  7. Bryson, J. (2001). Intelligence by Design: Principles of Modularity and Coordination for Engineering Complex Adaptive Agents. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  8. Bryson, J. (2003). Action selection and individuation in agent based modelling. In Proceedings of agent, pages 317-330.
  9. Gemrot, J., Brom, C., Bryson, J., and Bída, M. (2012a). How to compare usability of techniques for the specification of virtual agents behavior? an experimental pilot study with human subjects. Agents for Educational Games and Simulations, pages 38-62.
  10. Gemrot, J., Hlávka, Z., and Brom, C. (2012b). Does highlevel behavior specification tool make production of virtual agent behaviors better. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Cognitive Agents for Virtual Environments (CAVE'12).
  11. Gemrot, J., Kadlec, R., Bda, M., Burkert, O., Pbil, R., Havlek, J., Zemk, L., imlovi, J., Vansa, R., tolba, M., Plch, T., and Brom, C. (2009). Pogamut 3 can assist developers in building ai (not only) for their videogame agents. In Dignum, F., Bradshaw, J., Silverman, B., and Doesburg, W., editors, Agents for Games and Simulations, volume 5920 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1-15. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  12. GOAL (2015). Open source website for GOAL on github. https://github.com/goalhub.
  13. Heckel, F., Youngblood, G., and Hale, D. (2009). Behaviorshop: An intuitive interface for interactive character design. In Proceedings of the Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment. AAAI Press.
  14. Hindriks, K. (2009). Programming Rational Agents in GOAL. In Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications, pages 119-157. Springer US.
  15. Hindriks, K. V., de Boer, F. S., van der Hoek, W., and Meyer, J.-J. C. (1998). A Formal Embedding of Agentspeak(L) in 3APL. In Antoniou, G. and Slaney, J., editors, Advanced Topics in Artificial Intelligence , volume 1502 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 155-166. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  16. Lillis, D., Jordan, H. R., and Collier, R. W. (2012). Evaluation of a Conversation Management Toolkit for Multi Agent Programming. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Programming Multi-Agent Systems (ProMAS 2012), Valencia, Spain.
  17. Materials (2015). Experiment materials https://ii.tudelft. nl/trac/goal/wiki/Projects/PoshVsGoal.
  18. Pane, J. F. and Myers, B. A. (1996). Usability issues in the design of novice programming systems. Technical Report CMU-CS-96-132, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University.
  19. Shapiro, L. and Sterling, E. (1994). The Art of Prolog: Advanced Programming Techniques. MIT Press.
  20. van Riemsdijk, M. B., Hindriks, K. V., and Jonker, C. M. (2012). An empirical study of cognitive agent programs. Multiagent and Grid Systems (MAGS), 8(2):187-222.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Korstanje R., Brom C., Gemrot J. and Hindriks K. (2016). A Comparative Study of Programming Agents in POSH and GOAL . In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART, ISBN 978-989-758-172-4, pages 192-203. DOI: 10.5220/0005799601920203

in Bibtex Style

author={Rien Korstanje and Cyril Brom and Jakub Gemrot and Koen V. Hindriks},
title={A Comparative Study of Programming Agents in POSH and GOAL},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2: ICAART,
TI - A Comparative Study of Programming Agents in POSH and GOAL
SN - 978-989-758-172-4
AU - Korstanje R.
AU - Brom C.
AU - Gemrot J.
AU - Hindriks K.
PY - 2016
SP - 192
EP - 203
DO - 10.5220/0005799601920203