Advertisement

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 219–247 | Cite as

A Formal Model of Communication and Context Awareness in Multiagent Systems

  • Julien SaunierEmail author
  • Flavien Balbo
  • Suzanne Pinson
Article

Abstract

Awareness is a concept that has been frequently studied in the context of Computer Supported Cooperative Work. However, other fields of computer science can benefit from this concept. Recent research in the multi-agent systems field has highlighted the relevance of complex interaction models such as multi-party communication and context awareness for simulation and adaptive systems. In this article, we present a generic interaction model that enables to use these different models in a standardized way. Emerging as a first-order abstraction, the environment, in the sense of a common medium for the agents, is a suitable paradigm to support the agents’ awareness. We present an operational model, called Environment as Active Support of Interaction, to take into account all the agents that can be interested in a communication. This model is then extended for the regulation of multiagent systems interactions. Priority policies are given to manage the rules governing the context (un-)awareness of the agents. We also present a new AUML connector to create protocols that take into account the agent awareness to implement proactive behaviour, and several communication scenarios are proposed to show practical applications of this model.

Keywords

Multi-party communication Awareness Environment  MultiAgent systems 

References

  1. Balbo, F., & Pinson, S. (2010). Using intelligent agents for transportation regulation support system design. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 18(1), 140–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benini, M., Cindio, F. D., & Sonnante, L. (2005). Virtuose, a virtual community open source engine for integrating civic networks and digital cities. In Digital Cities III, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3081, pp. 217–232). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock, H., & Diday, E. (2000). Analysis of symbolic data, exploratory methods for extracting statistical information from complex data. In Studies in classification, data analysis, and knowledge organisation (Vol. 15). Berlin: Springer .Google Scholar
  4. Branigan, H. (2006). Perspectives on multi-party dialogue. Research on Language & Computation, 4(2–3), 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busetta, P., Donà, A., & Nori, M. (2002). Channeled multicast for group communications. In: AAMAS ’02: proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 1280–1287). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Camarinha-Matos, L. M., & Afsarmanesh, H. (2002). Design of a virtual community infrastructure for elderly care. In: PRO-VE ’02: Proceedings of the IFIP TC5/WG5.5 third working conference on infrastructures for virtual enterprises, The Netherlands: Kluwer, B.V. Deventer.Google Scholar
  7. Carriero, N., Gelernter, D., & Leichter, J. (1986). Distributed data structures in linda. In: POPL’86: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN symposium on Principles of programming languages (pp. 236–242). ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, R., & Smith, R. G. (1988). Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, 20(1), 333–356.Google Scholar
  9. Diday, E. (1991). From data analysis to uncertainty knowledge analysis. In Symbolic and quantitative approaches to uncertainty (pp. 153–160).Google Scholar
  10. Drury, J., Scholtz, J., & Yanco, H. (2003). Awareness in human-robot interactions. In IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics 2003. (Vol. 1, pp. 912–918).Google Scholar
  11. Dugdale, J., Pavard, J., & Soubie, B. (2000). A pragmatic development of a computer simulation of an emergency call center. In Designing cooperative systems: the use of theories and models (pp. 241–256). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  12. Endsley, M. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Human factors society, annual meeting, 32nd (pp. 97–101). CA: Anaheim.Google Scholar
  13. Esteva, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., Rosell, B., & Arcos, J. (2004). Ameli: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 2004) (pp. 236–243). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gouaïch, A., Michel, F., & Guiraud, Y. (2005). Mic*: A deployment environment for autonomous agents. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., & Michel, F. (eds.) Proceedings of environment for multi-agent systems, workshop held at the third AAMAS conference (Vol. 3374, pp. 109–126) Springer, LNAI.Google Scholar
  15. Gutnik, G., & Kaminka, G. A. (2006). Representing conversations for scalable overhearing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 25, 349–387.Google Scholar
  16. Hattori, F., Ohguro, T., Yokoo, M., Matsubara, S., & Yoshida, S. (1999). Socialware: Multiagent systems for supporting network communities. Communications of the ACM, 42(3), 55. doi: 10.1145/295685.295701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & vom Lehn, D., (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3), 317–347. doi: 10.1023/A:1021247413718.
  18. Julien, C., & Roman, G. C. (2006). Egospaces: Facilitating rapid development of context-aware mobile applications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 32(5), 281–298. doi: 10.1109/TSE.2006.47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaminka, G., Pynadath, C., & Tambe, M. (2002). Monitoring teams by overhearing: A multi-agent plan-recognition approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17, 83–135.Google Scholar
  20. Kumar, S., Huber, M. J., McGee, D., Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (2000). Semantics of agent communication languages for group interaction. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 42–47). AAAI Press/The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Legras, F., & Tessier, C. (2004). Lotto: Group formation by overhearing in large teams. In Advances in Agent Communication, LNAI (Vol. 2922, pp. 254–270) Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Markopoulos, P., De Ruyter, B., & MacKay, W. (2009). Awareness systems: Advances in theory, methodology and design. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Odell, J., Parunak, H. V. D., & Bauer, B. (2000). Extending uml for agents. In Proceedings of the agent-oriented information systems workshop at the 17th conference on artificial intelligence.Google Scholar
  24. Omicini, A., & Zambonelli, F. (1999). Tuple centres for the coordination of internet agents. In: SAC’99: Proceedings of the 1999 ACM symposium on Applied computing (pp. 183–190). New York: ACM Press. doi:  10.1145/298151.298231.
  25. Omicini, A., Ricci, A., & Viroli, M. (2008). Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 17(3), 432–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Platon, E., Sabouret, N., & Honiden, S. (2004). T-compound: An agent-specific design pattern and its environment. In Proceeding of the third international workshop on Agent Oriented Methodologies at OOPSLA (pp 63–74).Google Scholar
  27. Platon, E., Sabouret, N., & Honiden, S. (2005). Overhearing and direct interactions: Point of view of an active environment. Proceedings of environment for multi-agent systems, workshop held at the fourth AAMAS conference, Springer Verlag, LNAI (vol. 3830, pp. 121–138).Google Scholar
  28. Platon, E., Sabouret, N., & Honiden, S. (2007). Tag interactions in multiagent systems: Environment support. In Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F. (eds.), Proceedings of Environment for Multi-Agent Systems, Workshop held at the fifth AAMAS conference, LNAI (Vol. 4389, pp. 106–123) Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Ricci, A., Omicini, A., Viroli, M., Gardelli, L., & Oliva, E. (2007). Cognitive stigmergy: Towards a framework based on agents and artifacts. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F. (eds.). Proceedings of Environment for multi-agent systems, workshop held at the fifth AAMAS conference, LNAI, (Vol. 4389, pp. 124–140). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Saunier, J., & Balbo, F. (2007). An environment to support multi-party communications in multi-agent systems. Multi-agent systems and applications V, 5th international central and eastern European conference on multi-agent systems, CEEMAS 2007 (pp. 52–61). Leipzig, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Saunier, J., & Balbo, F. (2009). Regulated multi-party communications and context awareness through the environment. International Journal on Multi-agent and Grid Systems, 5(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
  32. Saunier, J., Balbo, F., & Badeig, F. (2007). Environment as active support of interaction. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F. (eds.) Proceedings of environment for multi-agent systems, workshop held at the fifth AAMAS conference, LNAI (vol. 4389, pp. 87–105). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Sycara, K., & Wong, H. (2000). A taxonomy of middle-agents for the internet. In ICMAS ’00: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS-2000), IEEE computer society pp. 465–466.Google Scholar
  34. Traum, D., & Rickel, J. (2002). Embodied agents for multi-party dialogue in immersive virtual worlds. In AAMAS’02: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 766–773) New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  35. Tummolini, L., Castelfranchi, C., Ricci, A., Viroli, M., & Omicini, A. (2004). ”Exhibitionists” and ”voyeurs” do it better: A shared environment approach for flexible coordination with tacit messages. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F. (eds.), Proceedings of environment for multi-agent systems, workshop held at the third AAMAS conference, LNAI, (Vol. 3374, pp. 215–231) Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. van den Besselaar, P., & Beckers, D. (2005). The life and death of the great amsterdam digital city. In Digital Cities III, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3081, pp. 66–96) Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Vertegaal, R., Velichkovsky, B., & Van Der Veer, G. (1997). Catching the eye: Management of joint attention in cooperative work. SIGCHI Bulletin, 29, 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warren, R. (1999). Auditory perception. A new analysis and synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F., Holvoet, T., & Ferber, J. (2004). Environments for multiagent systems, state-of-the-art and research challenges. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F. (eds.), Proceedings of Environment for Multi-Agent Systems, Workshop held at the third AAMAS conference, LNCS (Vol. 3374, pp. 2–52).Google Scholar
  40. Weyns, D., Steegmans, E., & Holvoet, T. (2004). Towards active perception in situated multi-agent systems. Journal on Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(9–10), 867–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weyns, D., Omicini, A., & Odell, J. (2007). Environment as a first-class abstraction in multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 14(1), 5–30. Special issue on Environments for Multi-agent Systems.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zheng, W., Serban, C., & Minsky, N. (2007). Establishing global properties of multi-agent systems via local laws. In: Weyns, D., Parunak, H. V. D., Michel, F. (eds.), Proceedings of Environment for multi-agent systems, workshop held at the fifth AAMAS conference, LNAI (Vol. 4389, pp. 170–183). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science, Information Processing and Systems Laboratory (LITIS)INSA-RouenSaint-Étienne-du-Rouvray CedexFrance
  2. 2.Henri Fayol Institute/ENS Mines Saint-EtienneSaint-Étienne CedexFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire CNRS-Lamsade Place du Maréchal de Lattre de TassignyUniversité Paris DauphineParis Cedex 16France

Personalised recommendations