Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 85–130 | Cite as

Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus

  • Federico ChesaniEmail author
  • Paola Mello
  • Marco Montali
  • Paolo Torroni
Article

Abstract

Multiagent social commitments provide a principled basis for agent interactions, and serve as a natural tool to resolve design ambiguities. Indeed, they have been the subject of considerable research for more than a decade. However, the take-up of the social commitments paradigm is yet to come. To explain this negative result, we pinpoint a number of shortcomings, which this article aims to address. We extend current commitment modelling languages, thus leveraging expressive possibilities that were precluded by previous formalizations. We propose a novel axiomatization of commitment operations in a first order Event Calculus framework, that accommodates reasoning with data and metric time. Finally, we illustrate how publicly available \({\mathcal{REC}}\) implementations can be exploited for commitment monitoring purposes.

Keywords

Social commitments On-line monitoring Multiagent systems Event calculus 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberti M., Chesani F., Gavanelli M., Lamma E., Mello P., Torroni P. (2008) Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: The SCIFF framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9(4): 1–43MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., & Torroni, P. (2005). The SCIFF abductive proof-procedure. In AI*IA 2005: Advances in artificial intelligence 9th congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Milan, Italy, September 21–32, 2005. Proceedings, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3673, pp. 135–147). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrieux, A., Czajkowski, K., Dan, A., Keahey, K., Ludwig, H., Nakata, T., Pruyne, J., Rofrano, J., Tuecke, S., & Xu, M. (2007). Web services agreement specification (ws-agreement). Tech. rep., Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol (GRAAP) WG.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M. J., & Pitt, J. V. (2009) Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 10(1), 1–42.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Marengo, E., & Patti, V. (2012). A generalized commitment machine for 2cl protocols and its implementation. In M. Baldoni, L. Dennis, V. Mascardi, & W. Vasconcelos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT 2012). Lecture notes in computer science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., & Marengo, E. (2010). Behavior-oriented commitment-based protocols. In Proceedings of 19th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., & Patti, V. (2012). Constitutive and regulative specifications of commitment protocols: A decoupled approach. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, to appear.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., & Schallhart, C. (2006). Monitoring of real-time properties. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science (FSTTCS). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4337, pp. 260–272). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer A., Leucker M., Schallhart C. (2010) Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. Logic and Computation, 20(3): 651–674MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bentahar J., Meyer J. J. C., Wan W. (2009) Model checking communicative agent-based systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 22(3): 142–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bragaglia, S., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2012). Reactive event calculus for monitoring global computing applications. In Essays in honour of Marek Sergot: Computational logic for normative systems. Lecture notes in computer science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In V. R. Lesser & L. Gasser (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international conference on multi agent systems(pp. 41–48). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2009). Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 91–96). San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2009). A REC-based commitment tracking tool. System demonstration. In Proceedings of the 10th AI*IA/TABOO Italian Joint Workshop “From Objects to Agents” (WOA). http://cmt.math.unipr.it/woa09/papers/Chesani_Demo.pdf.
  15. 15.
    Chesani F., Mello P., Montali M., Torroni P. (2010) A logic-based, reactive calculus of events. Fundamenta Informaticae 105(1–2): 135–161MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chesani F., Mello P., Montali M., Torroni P. (2011) Monitoring time-aware commitments within agent-based simulation environments. Cybernetics and Systems 42(7): 546–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chesani, F., Montali, M., Mello, P., & Torroni, P. (2010). Monitoring time-aware social commitments with reactive event calculus. In Proceedings of the 7th international symposium “From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation” (AT2AI-7).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chittaro, L., & Montanari, A. (1994). Efficient handling of context-dependency in the cached event calculus. In Proc. of TIME’94 - International Workshop on Temporal Representation and Reasoning (pp. 103–112).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chittaro L., Montanari A. (1996) Efficient temporal reasoning in the cached event calculus. Computational Intelligence 12: 359–382MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chittaro L., Montanari A. (2000) Temporal representation and reasoning in artificial intelligence: Issues and approaches. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 28(1–4): 47–106MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Multiagent commitment alignment. In C. Sierra, C. Castelfranchi, K. S. Decker, & J. S. Sichman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 937–944). Richland, SC: IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Colombetti, M. (2000). A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In Proceedings of workshop on agent languages and communication policies (pp. 21–29). Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., Arrott, M., Specht, B., & Singh, M. P. (2007). Engineering foreign exchange processes via commitment protocols. In IEEE SCC (pp. 514–521). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2007). Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. In AAAI (pp. 1328–1333). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 19(2), 1–45.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desai, N., Narendra, N. C., & Singh, M. P. (2008). Checking correctness of business contracts via commitments. In L. Padgham, D. C. Parkes, J. Müller, & S. Parsons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 787–794). Richland, SC: IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Desai, N., & Singh, M. P. (2008). On the enactability of business protocols. In D. Fox & C. P. Gomes (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 1126–1131). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2007). Coordinating tasks in agent organizations. Or: Can we ask you to read this paper? In COIN 2006 workshops, LNAI(Vol. 4386, pp. 32–47). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., & Dssouli, R. (2010). Verifiable semantic model for agent interactions using social commitments. In M. Dastani, A. E. Fallah-Seghrouchni, J. Leite, & P. Torroni (Eds.), Languages, methodologies, and development tools for multi-agent systems, second international workshop, LADS 2009, Torino, Italy, September 7–9, 2009, Revised Selected Papers. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6039, pp. 128–152). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., & Dssouli, R. (2011). Symbolic model checking commitment protocols using reduction. In A. Omicini, S. Sardiña, & W. W. Vasconcelos (Eds.), Declarative agent languages and technologies VIII—8th international workshop, DALT 2010, Toronto, Canada, May 10, 2010. Revised, Selected and Invited Papers. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6619, pp. 185–203). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2011). On the verification of social commitments and time. In L. Sonenberg, P. Stone, K. Tumer, & P. Yolum (Eds.), 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2011) (Vols. 1–3, pp. 483–490), Taipei, Taiwan, May 2–6, 2011.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farrell A. D. H., Sergot M. J., Sallé M., Bartolini C. (2005) Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2–3): 99–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fornara N., Colombetti M. (2004) A commitment-based approach to agent communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(9–10): 853–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions. In G. Boella, L. van der Torre, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems, no. 07122 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings (pp. 1–16). Germany: Schloss Dagstuhl. http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2007/909.
  35. 35.
    Fornara N., Colombetti M. (2009) Specifying artificial institutions in the event calculus. In: Dignum V. (eds) Handbook of research on multi-agent systems: Semantics and dynamics of organizational models. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 335–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fornara N., Colombetti M. (2010) Representation and monitoring of commitments and norms using owl. AI Communications 23(4): 341–356MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Giannakopoulou, D., & Havelund, K. (2001). Automata-based verification of temporal properties on running programs. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE international conference on automated software engineering (ASE 2001) (pp. 412–416). Providence, RI: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., & Turner, H. (2004). Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence, 153(1–2), 49–104.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Governatori, G., & Rotolo, A. (2010). Norm compliance in business process modeling. In M. Dean, J. Hall, A. Rotolo, & S. Tabet (Eds.), RuleML. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6403, pp. 194–209). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gunay, A., & Yolum, P. (2012). Detecting conflicts in commitments. In C. Sakama, S. Sardina, W. Vasconcelos, & M. Winikoff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT 2011). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7169). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Havelund, K., & Rosu, G. (2001). Testing linear temporal logic formulae on finite execution traces. Tech. Rep. TR 01-08, RIACS Technical Report.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jaffar, J., & Lassez, J. L. (1987). Constraint logic programming. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on principles of programming languages, POPL ’87 (pp. 111–119). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kafalı, Ö., & Torroni, P. (2011). Social commitment delegation and monitoring. In J. Leite, P. Torroni, T. Ågotnes, G. Boella, & L. van der Torre (Eds.), Computational logic in multi-agent systems—12th international workshop, CLIMA XII, Barcelona, Spain, 17–18 July 2011. Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6814, pp. 171–189). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kafali Ö., Torroni P. (2012) Exception diagnosis in multiagent contract executions. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 64(1): 73–107MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kowalski R. A., Sergot M. (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4(1): 67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lorini, E. (2010). A logical analysis of commitment dynamics. In G. Governatori, & G. Sartor (Eds.), Deontic logic in computer science, 10th international conference, DEON 2010, Fiesole, Italy, 7–9 July 2010. Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6181, pp. 288–305). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mahbub, K., & Spanoudakis, G. (2005). Run-time monitoring of requirements for systems composed of web-services: Initial implementation and evaluation experience. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS) (pp. 257–265). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mahbub K., Spanoudakis G. (2007) Monitoring WS-agreements: An event calculus-based approach. In: Baresi L., Nitto E.D. (eds) Test and analysis of web services. Springer, Berlin, pp 265–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mallya, A. U., & Huhns, M. N. (2003). Commitments among agents. IEEE Internet Computing, 7(4), 90–93.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mallya, A. U., Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2004). Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In International workshop on agent communication languages and conversation policies. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 2922, pp. 166–182). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Miller R., Shanahan M. (1999) The event calculus in classical logic—alternative axiomatisations. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence 3(A): 77–105MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Modgil, S., Faci, N., Meneguzzi, F. R., Oren, N., Miles, S., & Luck, M. (2009). A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In C. Sierra, C. Castelfranchi, K. S. Decker, & J. S. Sichman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (Vol. 1, pp. 153–160). Richland, SC: IFAAMAS.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Montali, M., Torroni, P., Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., & Mello, P. (2008). Verification from declarative specifications using logic programming. In M. G. de la Banda & E. Pontelli (Eds.), Logic programming, 24th international conference, ICLP 2008, Udine, Italy, 9–13 December 2008, Proceedings. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5366, pp. 440–454). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mueller, E. T. (2006). Commonsense reasoning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shanahan, M. (1999). The event calculus explained. In Artificial intelligence today. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 1600, pp. 409–430). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Singh, M. P. (1991). Social and psychological commitments in multiagent systems. In AAAI fall symposium on knowledge and action at social and organizational levels (pp. 104–106). Menlo Park, CA: Menlo Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Singh, M. P. (1998). Agent communication language: Rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer, 31, 40–47.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Singh M.P. (1999) An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7: 97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Singh, M. P. (2008). Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In D. Fox & C. P. Gomes (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-third AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2008, Chicago, IL, USA, 13–17 July 2008 (pp. 176–181). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Singh, M. P., Chopra, A. K., & Desai, N. (2009). Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Computer, 42(11), 72–79.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Spoletini, P., & Verdicchio, M. (2009). An automata-based monitoring technique for commitment-based multi-agent systems. In J. F. Hübner, E. T. Matson, O. Boissier, & V. Dignum (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in agent systems IV, COIN 2008 International Workshops, COIN@AAMAS 2008, Estoril, Portugal, May 12, 2008. COIN@AAAI 2008, Chicago, USA, 14 July 2008. Revised Selected Papers. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5428, pp. 172–187). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., & Montali, M. (2010). Social commitments in time: Satisfied or compensated. In M. Baldoni, J. Bentahar, M. B. van Riemsdijk, & J. Lloyd (Eds.), Declarative agent languages and technologies VII. Revised Selected and Invited Papers. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5948, pp. 228–243). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., & Montali, M. (2012). A retrospective on the Reactive Event Calculus and Commitment Modeling Language. In C. Sakama, S. Sardina, W. Vasconcelos, & M. Winikoff (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT 2011). Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 7169, pp. 120–127). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Torroni P., Yolum P., Singh M.P., Alberti M., Chesani F., Gavanelli M., Lamma E., Mello P. (2009) Modelling interactions via commitments and expectations. In: Dignum V. (eds) Handbook of research on multi-agent systems: Semantics and dynamics of organizational models. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, pp 263–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Venkatraman M., Singh M. P. (1999) Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3): 217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002). Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents & multiagent systems (pp. 527–534). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yolum P., Singh M. P. (2004) Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42(1–3): 227–253MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Federico Chesani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paola Mello
    • 1
  • Marco Montali
    • 2
  • Paolo Torroni
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations