Traditionally, communication among agents has been established based on the group commitment to a common ontology which is unfortunately often too strong or unrealistic. In the real world of communicating agents, it is preferred to enable agents to exchange information while they keep their own individual ontology. While this assumption makes agents represent their knowledge more independently and give them more flexibility, it also adds to the complexity of communication. We believe that agents can overcome this complexity by using their learning capability. The agents can learn any concept they do not know but want to communicate about with other agents in the multi-agent system where they work in. Our goal in this paper is to present a general method for agents using ontologies to teach each other concepts to improve their communication, and therefore cooperation abilities. In our method, a particular agent that understands a concept only ambiguously intends to learn it by receiving positive and negative examples for that concept from the other agents. Then, utilizing one of the known concept learning methods, the agent learns the concept in question. In case of conflicts in the received set of examples, the learning agent asks other agents again to get involved in the learning process by taking votes. While this method allows agents not to share common ontologies, it enables agents to establish common grounds on the concepts known only by some of them if these common grounds are needed during cooperation. In fact, the learned concepts by an agent are compromised among the views of other agents the method improves the autonomy of agents using them significantly.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
We keep the basic assumptions of the original algorithm unchanged. These assumptions include division by \((m.k)\) in line 7 and definition of \(\phi \) in line 10.
Afsharchi M, Far BH, Denzinger J (2009) Enhancing communication with groups of agents using learned non-unanimous ontology concepts. Int J Web Intell Agent Syst 7(1):107–121
Afsharchi M, Far BH, Denzinger J (2006) Ontology guided learning to improve communication among groups of agents. In: Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems (AAMAS’06), Hakodate, pp 923–930
Alexopoulos P, Wallace M, Kafentzis K, Askounis D (2011) IKARUS-Onto: a methodology to develop fuzzy ontologies from crisp ones. Knowl Inf Syst 1–29
Buckley C, Salton G, Allan J (1994) The effect of adding relevance information in a relevance feedback environment. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual international conference on research and development in information retrieval(SIGIR94). Springer, New York, pp 292–300
Çensoy M (2009) Concept learning for achieving personalized ontologies: an active learning approach vol 5680. ADMI, Springer, New York
Finin T, Labrou Y, Mayfied J (1997) Software agents. In: Bradshaw J (ed) KQML as an agent communication language. MIT Press, Cambridge
Illinois Semantic Integration Archive. http://anhai.cs.uiuc.edu/archive/, (as seen on Jan 30, 2005)
Jurisica I, Mylopoulos J, Yu E (2004) Ontologies for knowledge management: an information systems perspective. Knowl Inf Syst 6:380–401
Jim K-C, Giles CL (2000) Talking helps: evolving communicating agents for the predator-prey pursuit problem. Artif Life 6(3):237–254
JATLite ftp site. ftp://java.stanford.edu/JATLite/
JENA: A Semantic Web Framework for Java. http://jena.sourceforge.net/, (as seen on Jan 30, 2005)
Koller D, Sahami M (1997) Hierarchically classifying documents using very few words. In: Proceedings of the ICML-97, pp 170–178
Leite M (2012) Relating ontologies with a fuzzy information model. Knowl Inf Syst 1–33
Mitchell TM (1997) Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, New York
Mirbakhsh N, Didandeh A, Afsharchi M (2009) Incremental non-unanimous concept reformation through queried object classification. In: Proceedings of the international conference on intelligent agent technology (IAT09), Italy
OWL:Web Ontology Language. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/, (as seen on Sep 20, 2004)
Panait L, Luke S (2005) Cooperative multi-agent learning: the state of the art. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 11(3):387–434
Pinto HS, Martins JP (2004) Ontologies: how can they be built? Knowl Inf Syst 6:441–464
Packer H, Payne T, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2008) Evolving ontological knowledge bases through agent collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 6th European workshop on multi-agent systems
Protege: An Open Source Ontology Editor and Knowledge-base Framework. http://protege.stanford.edu/, (as seen on Jan 30, 2005)
Rocchio JJ (1971) Relevance feedback in information retrieval, The SMART retrieval system, experiments in automatic document processing. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Robnik-ikonja M, Kononenko I (2003) Theoretical and empirical analysis of relieff and rrelieff. Mach Learn 53:23–69
Sen S, Kar PP (2002) Sharing a concept. AAAI Tech Report SS-02-02, Stanford
Steels L (1998) The origins of ontologies and communication conventions in multi-agent systems. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 1(2):169–194
Stumme G (2002) Using ontologies and formal concept analysis for organizing business knowledge. In: Becker J, Knackstedt R (eds) Wissensmanagement mit Referenzmodellen—Konzepte für die Anwendungssystem- und Organisationsgestaltung. Physica, pp 163–174
University of Michigan academic units. http://www.umich.edu/units.html, (as seen on Jan 30, 2005)
van Diggelen J, Beun RJ, Dignum F, van Eijk RM, Meyer JJ (2007) Ontology negotiation: goals, requirements and implementation. Int J Agent-Oriented Softw Eng 1(1):63–90
van Diggelen J, Beun RJ, Dignum F, van Eijk RM, Meyer J-JCh (2006) ANEMONE: an effective minimal ontology negotiation environment. Proc AAMAS 2006:899–906
Williams AB (2004) Learning to share meaning in a multi agent system. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 8(2):165–193
Williams AB, Padmanabhan A, Blake MB (2003) Local consensus ontologies for B2B-oriented service discovery. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS-03, pp 647–654
Zhang J, Kang D-K, Silvescu A, Honavar V (2006) Learning accurate and concise Naive Bayes classifiers from attribute value taxonomies and data. Knowl Inf Syst 9(2):157–179
Zhu X, Ding W, Yu PS, Zhang C (2010) One-class learning and concept summarization for data streams. Knowl Inf Syst 1-31-31
About this article
Cite this article
Afsharchi, M., Didandeh, A., Mirbakhsh, N. et al. Common understanding in a multi-agent system using ontology-guided learning. Knowl Inf Syst 36, 83–120 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0524-7
- Multi-agent system