Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 192–229 | Cite as

Dynamically generated commitment protocols in open systems

  • Akın Günay
  • Michael Winikoff
  • Pınar Yolum
Article

Abstract

Agent interaction is a fundamental part of any multiagent system. Such interactions are usually regulated by protocols, which are typically defined at design-time. However, in many situations a protocol may not exist or the available protocols may not fit the needs of the agents. In order to deal with such situations agents should be able to generate protocols at runtime. In this paper we develop a three-phase framework to enable agents to create a commitment protocol dynamically. In the first phase one of the agents generates candidate commitment protocols, by considering its goals, its abilities and its knowledge about the other agents’ services. We propose two algorithms that ensure that each generated protocol allows the agent to reach its goals if the protocol is enacted. The second phase is ranking of the generated protocols in terms of their expected utility in order to select the one that best suits the agent. The third phase is the negotiation of the protocol between agents that will enact the protocol so that the agents can agree on a protocol that will be used for enactment. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach using a case study.

Keywords

Commitment protocol Generation Ranking 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Akın Günay is partially supported by TÜBİTAK Scholarship (2211) and Turkish State Planning Organization (DPT) under the TAM Project, 2007K120610. Part of this work was done while Akın Günay was a PhD student in the Department of Computer Engineering of Bogazici University and visiting PhD student in the Department of Information Science of University of Otago. This work is partially supported by Bogazici University Research Fund under grant 13A01P2.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberti, M., Cattafi, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., et al. (2011). A computational logic application framework for service discovery and contracting. International Journal of Web Service Research, 8(3), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A. (2009). Dynamic protocols for open agent systems. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), (Vol. 1, pp. 97–104).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In Proceedings of the international conference on multiagent systems, (pages 41–48).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheong, C., & Winikoff, M. (2009). Hermes: designing flexible and robust agent interactions (chapter 5). In V. Dignum (Ed.), Multi-agent systems—Semantics and dynamics of organizational models (pp. 105–139). Hershey, PA: IGI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2013). Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 27(1), 85–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chopra, A. K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2010). Reasoning about Agents and Protocols via Goals and Commitments. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS), (pp. 457–464).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalpiaz, F., Chopra, A. K., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2010). Adaptation in open systems: Giving interaction its rightful place. In J. Parsons, M. Saeki, P. Shoval, C. C. Woo, Y. Wand, (Eds.), Conceptual modeling - ER 2010, proceedings of the 29th international conference on conceptual modeling, Vancouver, BC, November 1—4, 2010, (Vol. 6412, pp. 31–45). Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2011). On the verification of social commitments and time. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (pp. 483–490).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2002). Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In Proceedings of the first insternational conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (pp. 536–542).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerard, S. N., & Singh, M. P. (2013). Evolving protocols and agents in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), (pp. 997–1004).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Günay, A., Winikoff, M., & Yolum, P. (2013). Commitment protocol generation. In M. Baldoni, L. Dennis, V. Mascardi, & W. Vasconcelos (Eds.), Declarative agent languages and technologies X (Vol. 7784, pp. 136–152)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer: Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, M. W., McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2003). When are two protocols the same? Communication in multiagent systems, agent communication languages and conversation polocies (Vol. 2650, pp. 253–268)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonker, C. M., Hindriks, K. V., Wiggers, P., & Broekens, J. (2012). Negotiating agents. AI Magazine, 33(3), 79–91.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mallya, A. U., & Singh, M. P. (2007). An algebra for commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 14(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A. K., Patti, V., & Singh, M. P. (2011). Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS), (pp. 467–474).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pham, D. Q., & Harland, J. (2007). Temporal linear logic as a basis for flexible agent interactions. In E. H. Durfee, M. Yokoo, M. N. Huhns, & O. Shehory (Eds.), 6th International joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2007), IFAAMAS, Honolulu, Hawaii, May 14–18, 2007, (pp. 124–131).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenschein, J. S., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of encounter. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabater, J., & Sierra, C. (2001). Regret: reputation in gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents, (pp. 194–195).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sensoy, M., Zhang, J., Yolum, P., & Cohen, R. (2009). Poyraz: Context-aware service selection under deception. Computational Intelligence, 25(4), 335–366.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Singh, M. P. (1999). An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Singh, M. P. (2011). Trust as dependence: A logical approach. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS), (pp. 863–870).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teacy, W., Patel, J., Jennings, N., & Luck, M. (2006). TRAVOS: Trust and reputation in the context of inaccurate information sources. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 12(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2012). Comma: A commitment-based business modeling methodology and its empirical evaluation. In: V. Conitzer, M. Winikoff, L. Padgham, & W. van der Hoek, (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh joint international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2012), (pp. 1073–1080).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Telang, R. P., Meneguzzi, F., & Singh, M. P (2013). Hierarchical planning about goals and commitments. In Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS, (pp. 877–884).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Udupi, Y. B., & Singh, M. P. (2006). Contract enactment in virtual organizations: A commitment-based approach. In Proceedings of the twenty-first national conference on artificial intelligence, (pp. 722–727).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatraman, M., & Singh, M. P. (1999). Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Winikoff, M. (2006). Implementing flexible and robust agent interactions using distributed commitment machines. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 2(4), 365–381.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Winikoff, M. (2007). Implementing commitment-based interactions. In Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS, (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., & Harland, J. (2004). Enhancing commitment machines. In J. Leite, A. Omicini, P. Torroni, & P. Yolum (Eds.), Declarative agent languages and technologies II (Vol. 3476, pp. 198–220)., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yolum, P. (2007). Design time analysis of multiagent protocols. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 63(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2002). Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of the first international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (pp. 527–534).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2007). Enacting protocols by commitment concession. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, (pp. 116–123).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer EngineeringNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations