Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence Review

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 21–38 | Cite as

The role of the environment in agreement technologies

  • Estefanía Argente
  • Olivier BoissierEmail author
  • Carlos Carrascosa
  • Nicoletta Fornara
  • Peter McBurney
  • Pablo Noriega
  • Alessandro Ricci
  • Jordi Sabater-Mir
  • Michael Ignaz Schumacher
  • Charalampos Tampitsikas
  • Kuldar Taveter
  • Giuseppe Vizzari
  • George Vouros
Article
  • 363 Downloads

Abstract

The notion of Multi-Agent System environment is currently considered as a mediating entity, functioning as enabler but possibly also as a manager and constrainer of agent actions, perceptions, and interactions. In this paper, we analyze how the environment could be a first class abstraction to support the building, the development and the management of Agreements in decentralized and open systems between autonomous agents. To this aim we analyze the synergies between the environment and the foundational dimensions of agreement technologies such as semantics, norms, organizations, argumentation & negotiation, trust.

Keywords

Environment Semantic Norm Organization Argumentation  Negotiation Trust Agreement technologies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is the synthesis of the discussions from the workshop and panel about Environment in Agreement Technologies, held during the COST Action IC0801 Agreement Technologies meeting June 1 and 2, 2012, organized by O. Boissier, C. Carrascosa, A. Ricci, M. Schumacher. We would like to thank the COST Action IC0801 for the support.

References

  1. Arcos JL, Noriega P, Rodriguez-Aguilar JA, Sierra C (2007) E4mas through electronic institutions. In: Weyns D, Parunak H, Michel F (eds), Environments for multi-agent systems III., number 4389 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 184–202. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 08/05/2006Google Scholar
  2. Bandini S, Manzoni S, Vizzari G (2009) Agent based modeling and simulation: an informatics perspective. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12(4):4Google Scholar
  3. Beun R-J, Eijk R (2004) A co-operative dialogue game for resolving ontological discrepancies. In: Dignum F (ed) Advances in agent communication, LNAI 2922. Springer, Berlin pp 349–363Google Scholar
  4. Bromuri S, Stathis K (2008) Situating cognitive agents in GOLEM. In: Weyns D, Brueckner S, Demazeau Y (eds) Engineering environment-mediated multi-agent systems, vol. 5049., of LNCSSSpringer Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 115–134Google Scholar
  5. Bromuri S, Stathis K (2009) Distributed agent environments in the ambient event calculus. In: Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on distributed event-based systems, DEBS ’09, pp 12:1–12:12, New York, NY, USA, ACMGoogle Scholar
  6. da Silva VT, Choren R, Lucena CD (2008) MAS-ML: a multi-agent system modeling language. Int J Agent-Oriented Softw Eng 2(4):381–421Google Scholar
  7. da Silva Figueiredo K, Torres da Silva V, de Oliveira Braga C (2011) Modeling norms in multi-agent systems with normml. In: De Vos M, Fornara N, Pitt J, Vouros G (eds) Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI, vol. 6541., of Lecture Notes in Computer ScienceSpringer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 39–57Google Scholar
  8. Dignum V (2009) Handbook of research on multi-agent systems : semantics and dynamics of organizational models, chapter the role of organization in agent systems, pp 1–16. Information Science Reference Publisher, ISBN 978-1-60566-256-5, doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-256-5.ch001
  9. d’Inverno M, Luck M, Noriega P, Rodriguez-Aguilar JA, Sierra C (2012) Communicating open systems. Artif Intell 186:38–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. dos Santos CT, Quaresma P, Vieira R, Isaac A (2009) Comparing argumentation frameworks for composite ontology matching. In: McBurney P, Rahwan I, Parsons S, Maudet N (eds), ArgMAS, vol. 6057 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, pp 305–320Google Scholar
  11. Esparcia S, Argente E, Centeno R, Hermoso R (2011) Enhancing MAS environments with organizational mechanisms. Int J Artif Intell Tools (IJAIT) 20(4):663–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esparcia S, Centeno R, Hermoso R, Argente E (2011) Artifacting and regulating the environment of a virtual organization. In: 23rd IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI 2011). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferber J, Michel F, Baez J (2005) AGRE: integrating environments with organizations. In: Environments for multi-agent systems, vol. 3374 of LNCS, pp 48–56. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  14. Fornara N, Colombetti M (2009) Specifying and enforcing norms in artificial institutions. In: Baldoni M, Son T, van Riemsdijk M, Winikoff M (eds) Declarative agent languages and technologies VI, vol. 5397. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  15. Fornara N, Tampitsikas C (2012) Using OWL artificial institutions for dynamically creating open spaces of interaction. In: Proceedings of the AT 2012 first international conference on agreement technologies, October 15–16, 2012 in Dubrovnik, Croatia., page to appearGoogle Scholar
  16. Garca-Camino A, Noriega P, Rodrguez-Aguilar JA (2005) Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS ’05, (ed) Michal Pechoucek ST, Steinernald. Utrecht, NL, ACM Press, pp 667–673Google Scholar
  17. Gordon TF, Karacapilidis N (1997) The zeno argumentation framework. In: Proceedings sixth international conference on AI and law, pp 10–18, New York, ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodge BJ, Anthony W, Gales L (2002) Organization theory: a strategic approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. Hübner J, Boissier O, Kitio R, Ricci A (2010) Instrumenting multi-agent organisations with organisational artifacts and agents. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 20:369–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hulstijn J, Dastani M, van der Torre L (2000) Negotiation protocols and dialogue games. In: Proceedings Belgian-Dutch AI conference (BNAIC-2000), KaatsheuvelGoogle Scholar
  21. Karunatillake NC (2006) Argumentation-based negotiation in a social context. Phd, School of electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Koster A, Schorlemmer WM, Sabater-Mir J (2012) Engineering trust alignment: theory, method and experimentation. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 70(6):450–473Google Scholar
  23. Kraus S, Sycara K, Evenchik A (1998) Reaching agreement through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif Intell 104:1–69MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krummenacher R, Simperl EPB, Cerizza D, Valle ED, Nixon LJB, Foxvog D (2009) Enabling the European patient summary through triplespaces. Comput Methods Programs Biomed, 95(2–S1):33–43Google Scholar
  25. Kullerkupp R (2012) Analysis and preliminary design of a social networking system for supporting information exchange about medicines. Master’s thesis. Department of Informatics, Tallinn University of Technology, EstoniaGoogle Scholar
  26. Locatelli MP, Vizzari G (2007) Awareness in collaborative ubiquitous environments: the multilayered multi-agent situated system approach. TAAS 2(4)Google Scholar
  27. McBurney P, Parsons S (2009) Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In: Rahwan I, Simari G (eds) Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chapter 13. Springer, Berlin, pp 261–280Google Scholar
  28. Miller T, McBurney P (2011) Propositional dynamic logic for reasoning about first-class agent interaction protocols. Comput Intell 27(3):422–457MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller T, McBurney P (2008) Annotation and matching of first-class agent interaction protocols. In: Proceedings seventh international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2008, (ed) Padgham L, Parkes D, Mueller JP, Parsons S. NY, SA, ACM Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller T, McBurney P (2010) Characterising and matching iterative and recursive agent interaction protocols. In: Proceedings ninth international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2010, (ed) van der Hoek W, Kaminka G, Luck M, Sen S. Toronto, Canada, IFAAMAS, ACM Press, pp 1207–1214Google Scholar
  31. Odell J, Parunak HVD, Fleischer M, Brueckner S (2003) Modeling agents and their environment. In: Agent-oriented software engineering III, vol. 2585 of LNCS, pp 16–31. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Okuyama FY, Bordini RH, da Rocha Costa AC (2008) A distributed normative infrastructure for situated multi-agent organisations. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems - vol. 3, AAMAS ’08. Richland, SC, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp 1501–1504Google Scholar
  33. Oliva E, McBurney P, Omicini A (2007) Co-argumentation artifact for agent societies. In: Rahwan I, Reed C, Parsons S, (eds), Proceedings fourth international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems (ArgMAS 2007), pp. 115–130, AAMAS (2007) Honolulu. Hawai’i, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Omicini A, Ricci A, Viroli M (2008) Artifacts in the A &A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 17(3):432–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oren N, Norman T, Preece A, Chalmers S (2004) Policing virtual organizations. In: Proceedings second european conference on multi-agent systems (EUMAS 2004, (ed) Ghidini C, Giorgini P, Hoek W. Barcelona, Spain, EUMAS, pp 499–508Google Scholar
  36. Pinyol I, Sabater-Mir J (2012) Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artif Intell Rev, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  37. Piunti M, Ricci A, Boissier O, Hübner JF (2009) Embodied organisations in MAS environments. In: Proceedings of the 7th German conference on multiagent system technologies MATES’09, vol. 5774 of LNAI, pp 115–127. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  38. Reed C, Norman TJ, Jennings NR (2002) Negotiating the semantics of agent communications languages. Comput Intell 18(2):229–252MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ricci A, Piunti M, Viroli M, Omicini A (2009) Environment programming in cartago. In: Bordini RH, Dastani M, Dix J, El Fallah-Seghrouchni A (eds) Multi-agent programming: languages, platforms and applications, vol 2. Springer, Berlin, pp 259–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ricci A, Piunti M, Viroli M (2011) Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 23(2):158–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sarrasin JJ, Schumacher M, Hay C, Richard P (June 2010) Health-identity: mobile services for consumers of medicines. In: Special topic conference “Seamless care - safe care: the challenges of interoperability”Google Scholar
  42. Searle JR (1995) The construction of social reality. Free Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  43. Sensoy M, Norman TJ, Vasconcelos WW, Sycara KP (2012) Owl-polar: a framework for semantic policy representation and reasoning. J Web Sem 12:148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sterling L, Taveter K (2009) The art of agent-oriented modeling. The MIT Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  45. Tampitsikas C, Bromuri S, Fornara N, Schumacher MI (2012) Interdependent artificial institutions in agent environments. Appl Artif Intell 26(4):398–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tinnemeier N, Dastani M, Meyer J-J (2010) Programming norm change. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: vol. 1, AAMAS ’10. Richland, SC, ACM, pp 957–964Google Scholar
  47. Wagner J, Hollenbeck J (2001) Organizational behavior. South-Western PubGoogle Scholar
  48. Weyns D, Holvoet T (2004) Formal model for situated multiagent systems. Fundam Inform 63(2–3):125–158MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Weyns D, Omicini A, Odell JJ (2007) Environment as a first-class abstraction in multi-agent systems. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 14(1):5–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weyns D, Parunak HVD (eds) (2007) Special issue on environments for multi-agent systems, vol, 14 (1) of autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  51. Weyns D, Parunak HVD, Michel F, Holvoet T, Ferber J (2005) Environments for multiagent systems: state-of-the-art and research challenges. In: Weyns D, Parunak HVD, Michel F, Holvoet T, Ferber J (eds) Environment for multi-agent systems, vol. 3374. Springer, Berlin pp 1–47Google Scholar
  52. Weyns D, Schelfthout K, Holvoet T, Lefever T (2005) Decentralized control of E’GV transportation systems. In: Pechoucek M, Steiner D, Thompson SG (eds) AAMAS industrial applications, pp 67–74. ACMGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Estefanía Argente
    • 1
  • Olivier Boissier
    • 2
    Email author
  • Carlos Carrascosa
    • 3
  • Nicoletta Fornara
    • 4
  • Peter McBurney
    • 5
  • Pablo Noriega
    • 6
  • Alessandro Ricci
    • 7
  • Jordi Sabater-Mir
    • 6
  • Michael Ignaz Schumacher
    • 8
  • Charalampos Tampitsikas
    • 8
  • Kuldar Taveter
    • 9
  • Giuseppe Vizzari
    • 10
  • George Vouros
    • 11
  1. 1.Departamento Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.LSTI/Institut Henri FayolENS Mines Saint-EtienneSaint-EtienneFrance
  3. 3.Departamento Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUniversitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  4. 4.Faculty of Communication SciencesUniversità della Svizzera italianaLuganoSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of InformaticsKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  6. 6.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC)Spanish National Research CouncilBarcelonaSpain
  7. 7.DISIUniversity of BolognaCesenaItaly
  8. 8.Institute of Business Information SystemsUniversity of Applied Sciences Western SwitzerlandSierreSwitzerland
  9. 9.Department of InformaticsTallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia
  10. 10.Complex Systems and Artificial Intelligence research centerUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanoItaly
  11. 11.Department of Digital SystemsUniversity of PiraeusPiraeusGreece

Personalised recommendations