Applied Intelligence

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 489–509 | Cite as

Constraint satisfaction as a tool for modeling and checking feasibility of multiagent commitments

  • Akın Günay
  • Pınar Yolum


Commitments are being used to specify interactions among autonomous agents in multiagent systems. Various formalizations of commitments have shown their strength in representing and reasoning on multiagent interactions. These formalizations mostly study commitment lifecycles, emphasizing fulfillment of a single commitment. However, when multiple commitments coexist, fulfillment of one commitment may have an effect on the lifecycle of other commitments. Since agents generally participate in more than one commitment at a time, it is important for an agent to determine whether it can honor its commitments. These commitments may be the existing commitments of the agent as well as any prospective commitments that the agent plans to participate in. To address this, we develop the concept of commitment feasibility, i.e., whether it is possible for an agent to fulfill a set of commitments all together. To achieve this we generalize the fulfillment of a single commitment to the feasibility of a set of commitments. We then develop a solid method to determine commitment feasibility. Our method is based on the transformation of feasibility into a constraint satisfaction problem and use of constraint satisfaction techniques to come up with a conclusion. We show soundness and completeness of our method and illustrate its applicability over realistic cases.


Multiagent interaction Commitments Fulfillment Feasibility 



This work is partially supported by Bogazici University Research Fund under grant BAP5694, and the Turkish State Planning Organization (DPT) under the TAM Project, 2007K120610. Akın Günay is partially supported by a TÜBİTAK Scholarship (2211). Pınar Yolum is partially supported by a TÜBİTAK Scholarship (2219).


  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 Trans Comput Log 9(4):1–43 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alfonso MI, Barber F (2004) A mixed closure-CSP method for solving scheduling problems. Appl Intell 21(2):173–193 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apt KR (2003) Principles of constraint programming. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baptiste P, Le Pape C (1995) A theoretical and experimental comparison of constraint propagation techniques for disjunctive scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 14th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI), pp 600–606 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Both F, Hoogendoorn M, Mee A, Treur J, Vos M (2012) An intelligent agent model with awareness of workflow progress. Appl Intell 36(2):498–510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bradshaw JM, Dutfield S, Benoit P, Woolley JD (1997) KAoS: toward an industrial-strength open agent architecture. In: Bradshaw JM (ed) Software agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 375–418 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brailsford SC, Potts CN, Smith BM (1999) Constraint satisfaction problems: algorithms and applications. Eur J Oper Res 119(3):557–581 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Castelfranchi C (1995) Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Proceedings of the international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS), pp 41–48 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 artifical intelligence (IJCAI), pp 91–96 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chittaro L, Montanari A (1996) Efficient temporal reasoning in the cached event calculus. Comput Intell 12(3):359–382 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chopra AK, 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 multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 457–464 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Damianou N, Dulay N, Lupu E, Sloman M (2001) The ponder policy specification language. In: Sloman M, Lupu E, Lobo J (eds) Policies for distributed systems and networks. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1995. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 18–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Desai N, Chopra AK, Arrott M, Specht B, Singh MP (2007) Engineering foreign exchange processes via commitment protocols. In: IEEE international conference on services computing (SCC), pp 514–521 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Desai N, Chopra AK, Singh MP (2007) Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), pp 1328–1333 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Desai N, Chopra AK, Singh MP (2009) Amoeba: a methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 19(2):1–45 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Desai N, Narendra NC, Singh MP (2008) Checking correctness of business contracts via commitments. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 787–794 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    El-Menshawy M, Bentahar J, Qu H, Dssouli R (2011) On the verification of social commitments and time. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 483–490 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fenech S, Pace G, Schneider G (2009) CLAN: a tool for contract analysis and conflict discovery. In: Automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5799. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 90–96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fornara N, Colombetti M (2002) Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 536–542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Günay A, Yolum P (2010) Service matchmaking revisited: an approach based on model checking. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 8(4), 292–309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Günay A, Yolum P (2012) Detecting conflicts in commitments. In: Declarative agent languages and technologies (DALT) IX—revised selected and invited papers. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 7169. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 51–66 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kafalı Ö, Günay A, Yolum P (2012) \(\mathcal{PROTOSS}\): a run time tool for detecting \(\mathcal {PR}\)ivacy vi\(\mathcal{O}\)la\(\mathcal{T}\)ions in \(\mathcal{O}\)nline \(\mathcal{S}\)ocial network\(\mathcal{S}\). In: IEEE/ACM international conference on advances in social networks analysis and mining, pp 429–433 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kagal L, Finin T, Joshi A (2003) A policy based approach to security for the semantic web. In: Fensel D, Sycara K, Mylopoulos J (eds) The semantic web—ISWC 2003. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2870. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 402–418 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kang J, Sim K (2012) A multiagent brokering protocol for supporting grid resource discovery. Appl Intell 37(4):527–542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koohborfardhaghighi S, Kim J (2013) Using structural information for distributed recommendation in a social network. Appl. Intell. 38(2):255–266. doi: 10.1007/s10489-012-0371-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuchcinski K (2003) Constraints-driven scheduling and resource assignment. ACM Trans Des Autom Electron Syst 8(3):355–383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lajos G (1996) Complete university modular timetabling using constraint logic programming. In: Burke E, Ross P (eds) Practice and theory of automated timetabling. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1153. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 146–161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lomuscio A, Qu H, Raimondi F (2009) MCMAS: a model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. In: Bouajjani A, Maler O (eds) Computer aided verification. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5643. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 682–688 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mallya AU, Yolum P, Singh MP (2003) Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In: Dignum F (ed) Advances in agent communication. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 2922. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 166–182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marengo E, Baldoni M, Baroglio C, Chopra AK, Patti V, Singh MP (2011) Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In: The 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 467–474 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mouhoub M, Sukpan A (2012) Conditional and composite temporal CSPs. Appl Intell 36(1):90–107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Oren N, Panagiotidi S, Vázquez-Salceda J, Modgil S, Luck M, Miles S (2009) Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. In: Hübner J, Matson E, Boissier O, Dignum V (eds) Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in agent systems IV. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5428. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 156–171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ramchurn SD, Huynh D, Jennings NR (2004) Trust in multi-agent systems. Knowl Eng Rev 19(1):1–25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sandhu RS, Samarati P (1994) Access control: principle and practice. IEEE Commun Mag 32(9):40–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sensoy M, Norman TJ, Vasconcelos WW, Sycara K (2012) OWL-POLAR: a framework for semantic policy representation and reasoning. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 12–13:148–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singh MP (1998) Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Comput 31(12):40–47 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh MP (1999) An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif Intell Law 7(1):97–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Singh MP (2008) Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: Proceedings of the 23rd national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI), pp 176–181 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Singh MP, Chopra AK, Desai N (2009) Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Comput 42(11):72–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Telang PR, Singh MP (2011) Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models: an agent-oriented approach. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 5(3):305–318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang Y, Singh MP (2007) Formal trust model for multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artifical intelligence (IJCAI), pp 1551–1556 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Winikoff M, Liu W, Harland J (2005) Enhancing commitment machines. In: Leite J, Omicini A, Torroni P, Yolum P (eds) Declarative agent languages and technologies II. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3476. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 198–220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yolum P, Singh MP (2002) Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 527–534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityBebek, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations