Advertisement

Enhancing Commitment Machines

  • Michael Winikoff
  • Wei Liu
  • James Harland
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3476)

Abstract

Agent interaction protocols are usually specified in terms of permissible sequences of messages. This representation is, unfortunately, brittle and does not allow for flexibility and robustness. The commitment machines framework of Yolum and Singh aims to provide more flexibility and robustness by defining interactions in terms of the commitments of agents. In this paper we identify a number of areas where the commitment machines framework needs improvement and propose an improved version. In particular we improve the way in which commitments are discharged and the way in which pre-conditions are specified.

Keywords

MultiAgent System Finite State Machine Undesirable State Reasoning Module Event Calculus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 527–534 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI), Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems 42, 227–253 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reisig, W.: Petri Nets: An Introduction. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer, Heidelberg (1985) ISBN 0-387-13723-8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huget, M.P., Odell, J., Haugen, Ø., Nodine, M.M., Cranefield, S., Levy, R., Padgham, L.: Fipa modeling: Interaction diagrams. On http://www.auml.org under Working Documents (2003) FIPA Working Draft (version 2003-07-02)
  5. 5.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H., Bauer, B.: Extending UML for agents. In: Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Information Systems Workshop at the 17th National conference on Artificial Intelligence (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sirbu, M.A.: Credits and debits on the internet. In: Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P. (eds.) Readings in Agents, pp. 299–305. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco (1998); Reprinted from IEEE Spectrum (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Proceeding of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna, Italy, pp. 535–542. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kumar, S., Huber, M.J., Cohen, P.R.: Representing and executing protocols as joint actions. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, Bologna, Italy, pp. 543–550. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Gungui, I., Martelli, A., Martelli, M., Mascardi, V., Patti, V., Schifanella, C.: Reasoning about agents’ interaction protocols inside DCaseLP. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 112–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutchison, J., Winikoff, M.: Flexibility and robustness in agent interaction protocols. In: Workshop on Challenges in Open Agent Systems at the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems, Bologna, Italy. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Küngas, P., Matskin, M.: Partial deduction for linear logic — the symbolic negotiation perspective. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 35–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chopra, A.K., Mallya, A.U., Desai, N.V., Singh, M.P.: Modeling flexible business processes. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, P. (eds.) Preproceedings of Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies, pp. 93–108 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Commitment machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vasconcelos, W.W.: Norm verification and analysis of electronic institutions. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 166–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walton, C.D.: Model checking agent dialogues. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Synthesizing finite state machines for communication protocols. Technical Report TR-2001-06, North Carolina State University (2001), Available from, http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/research/tech-reports/README.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  • Wei Liu
    • 2
  • James Harland
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations