Unifying Agent Systems

  • Michael Luck
  • Mark d'Inverno
Article
  • 68 Downloads

Abstract

Whilst there has been an explosion of interest multi-agent systems, there are still many problems that may have a potentially deleterious impact on the progress of the area. These problems have arisen primarily through the lack of a common structure and language for understanding multi-agent systems, and with which to organise and pursue research in this area. In response to this, previous work has been concerned with developing a computational formal framework for agency and autonomy which, we argue, provides an environment in which to develop, evaluate, and compare systems and theories of multi-agent systems. In this paper we go some way towards justifying these claims by reviewing the framework and showing what we can achieve within it by developing models of agent dimensions, categorising key inter-agent relationships and by applying it to evaluate existing multi-agent systems in a coherent computational model. We outline the benefits of specifying each of the systems within the framework and consider how it allows us to unify different systems and approaches in general.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    R. Aylett and M. Luck, Applying artificial intelligence to virtual reality: intelligent virtual environments, applied Artificial Intelligence 14(1) (2000) 3–32.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.P. Bowen, Formal Specification and Documentation using Z: A Case Study Approach (Thomson Computer Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.P. Bowen, M.G. Hinchey and D. Till (eds.), ZUM'97: The Z Formal Specification Notation, 10th International Conference of Z Users, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1212 (Springer, Berlin, 1997).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.P. Bowen, S. Fett and M.G. Hinchey (eds.), ZUM'98: The Z Formal Specification Notation, 11th International Conference of Z Users, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1493 (Springer, Berlin, 1998).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.A. Campbell and M. d'Inverno, Knowledge interchange protocols, in: Decentralized AI: Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, eds. Y. Demazeau and J.-P. Müller (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990) pp. 63–80.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Castelfranchi, Social power, in: Decentralized AI – Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW-89), eds. Y. Demazeau and J.-P. Müller (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1990) pp. 49–62.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    C. Castelfranchi, M. Miceli and A. Cesta, Dependence relations among autonomous agents, in: Decentralized AI 3 – Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW-91), eds. E. Werner and Y. Demazeau (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1992) pp. 215–231.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    B. Chaib-draa, Industrial applications of distributed AI, Communications of the ACM 38(11) (1995) 49–53.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Chellas, Modal Logic: An Introduction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1980).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    B. Crabtree, What chance software agents? Knowledge Engineering Review 13(2) (1998) 131–136.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. Davis and R.G. Smith, Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving, Artificial Intelligence 20(1) (1983) 63–109.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. d'Inverno, Agents, Agency and Autonomy: A Formal Computational Model, PhD Thesis, University College London, University of London (1998).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. d'Inverno, M. Fisher, A. Lomuscio, M. Luck, M. de Rijke, M. Ryan and M. Wooldridge, Formalisms for multi-agent systems, Knowledge Engineering Review 12(3) (1997) 315–321.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    M. d'Inverno, D. Kinny and M. Luck, Interaction protocols in agentis, in: ICMAS'98, Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Paris, France (IEEE Computer Society, 1998) pp. 112–119.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    M. d'Inverno, D. Kinny, M. Luck and M. Wooldridge, A formal specification of dMARS, in: Intelligent Agents IV: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1365 (Springer, 1998) pp. 155–176.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    M. d'Inverno and M. Luck, A formal view of social dependence networks, in: Distributed Artificial Intelligence Architecture and Modelling: Proceedings of the First AustralianWorkshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, eds. C. Zhang and D. Lukose, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1087 (Springer, 1996) pp. 115–129.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    M. d'Inverno and M. Luck, Engineering agentspeak(l): A formal computational model, Logic and Computation 8(3) (1998) 233–260.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    M. d'Inverno, M. Priestley and M. Luck, A formal framework for hypertext systems, IEE Proceedings – Software Engineering Journal 144(3) (1997) 175–184.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    E.A. Emerson and J.Y. Halpern, ‘sometimes’ and ‘not never’ revisited: on branching time versus linear time temporal logic, Journal of the ACM 33(1) (1986) 151–178.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    O. Etzioni, H.M. Levy, R.B. Segal and C.A. Thekkath, The softbot approach to OS interfaces, IEEE Software (1995) 12(4).Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    M.R. Genesereth and S.P. Ketchpel, Software agents, Communications of the ACM 37(7) (1994) 48–53.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    M.R. Genesereth and N. Nilsson, Logical Foundations of Artificial Intelligence (Morgan Kaufmann, 1987).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    R. Goodwin, A formal specification of agent properties, Journal of Logic and Computation 5(6) (1995).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Grand and D. Cliff, Creatures: entertainment software agents with artificial life, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1(1) (1998) 39–57.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    R.H. Guttman, A.G. Moukas and P. Maes, Agent-mediated electronic commerce: a survey, Knowledge Engineering Review 13(2) (1998) 147–159.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    I.J. Hayes (ed.), Specification Case Studies, 2nd ed. (Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, 1993).Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    C.A.R. Hoare, Communicating sequential processes, Communications of the ACM 21 (1978) 666–677.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    N.R. Jennings, P. Faratin, M.J. Johnson, P. O'Brien and M.E. Wiegand, Agent-based business process management, International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 5(2–3) (1996) 105–130.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    N.R. Jennings, K. Sycara and M. Wooldridge, A roadmap of agent research and development, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1(1) (1998) 7–38.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    N.R. Jennings and T. Wittig, ARCHON: Theory and practice, in: Distributed Artificial Intelligence: Theory and Praxis (ECSC/EEC/EAEC, 1992) pp. 179–195.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    W.L. Johnson and B. Hayes-Roth (eds.), in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents (ACM Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    C.B. Jones, Systematic Software Development using VDM, 2nd ed. (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1990).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    D. Kinny, M. Georgeff and A. Rao, A methodology and modelling technique for systems of BDI agents, in: Agents Breaking Away: Proceedings of the Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, eds. Y. Demazeau and J.-P. Müller, Lecture Notes in Artificial Sciences, Vol. 1038 (Springer, 1996) pp. 56–71.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    D. Kuokka and L. Harada, Matchmaking for information agents, in: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-95), Montréal, Québec, Canada (August 1995) pp. 672–679.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    Kevin Lano, The B Language and Method: A Guide to Practical Formal Development (Springer, Berlin, 1996).Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Y. Lashkari, M. Metral and P. Maes, Collaborative interface agents, in: Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1994) pp. 444–449.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    M. Luck, From definition to deployment: What next for agent-based systems? The Knowledge Engineering Review (1999) 119–124.Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    M. Luck and M. d'Inverno, A formal framework for agency and autonomy, in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1995) pp. 254–260.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    M. Luck and M. d'Inverno, A conceptual framework for agent definition and development, The Computer Journal 44(1) (2001) 1–20.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    R. Milner, Communication and Concurrency (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1989).Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    B.G. Milnes, A specification of the Soar architecture in Z, Technical Report CMU-CS-92-169, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University (1992).Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    H. Van Dyke Parunak, Applications of distributed artificial intelligence in industry, in: Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, eds. G.M.P. O'Hare and N.R. Jennings (Wiley, New York, 1996) pp. 139–164.Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    H. Van Dyke Parunak, What can agents do in industry, and why? An overview of industrially-oriented r&d at CEC, in: Cooperative Information Agents II, eds. M. Klusch and G. Weiss, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1435 (Springer, 1998) pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    A.S. Rao, AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language, in: Agents Breaking Away: Proceedings of the Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, eds. W. Van de Velde and J.W. Perram, Lecture Notes in Artificial Sciences, Vol. 1038 (Springer, Berlin, 1996) pp. 42–55.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    J.S. Sichman, Y. Demazeau, R. Conte and C. Castelfranchi, A social reasoning mechanism based on dependence networks, in: 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 94) (Wiley, New York, 1994) pp. 188–192.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    J.S. Sichman and Y. Demazeau, Exploiting social reasoning to deal with agency level inconsistency, in: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (AAAI Press/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1995) pp. 352–359.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    R.G. Smith, The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver, IEEE Transactions on Computers 29(12) (1980) 1104–1113.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    R.G. Smith and R. Davis, Frameworks for cooperation in distributed problem solving, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 11(1) (1981) 61–70.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    M. Spivey, The Z Notation, 2nd ed. (Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, 1992).Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    C. Toomey and W. Mark, Satellite image dissemination via software agents, IEEE Expert 10(5) (1995) 44–51.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    M. Weber, Combining Statecharts and Z for the design of safety-critical control systems, in: FME'96: Industrial Benefit and Advances in Formal Methods, eds. M.-C. Gaudel and J.C.P. Woodcock, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1051 (Springer, 1996) pp. 307–326.Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    D. Wong, N. Paciorek and D. Moore, Java-based mobile agents, Communications of the ACM 42(3) (1999) 92–102.Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings, The cooperative problem solving aprocess, Journal of Logic & Computation 9 (1999).Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    M.J. Wooldridge and N.R. Jennings, Intelligent agents: Theory and practice, Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2) (1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Luck
    • 1
  • Mark d'Inverno
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Cavendish School of Computer ScienceUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations