Coordinating Distributed Decision Making Using Reusable Interaction Specifications

  • K. S. Barber
  • D. C. Han
  • T. H. Liu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1881)


The organization structure of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) constrains the mechanisms that may be used for coordinating the agents’ decision-making process. As researchers develop MAS that allow agents to dynamically re-organize how to interact with each other, the design of the agents must provide the ability to operate under different organizations. This paper investigates the issues involved in increasing the flexibility of agents’ coordination capabilities. Applying the concepts of encapsulation and polymorphism, a representation of coordination strategies is presented as an abstraction that allows agents to easily switch coordination mechanisms and that allows coordination mechanisms to be applied to different domains.


Design Pattern Coordination Mechanism Computational Unit Coordination Strategy Negotiation Manager 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Adler, M. R., Davis, A. B., Weihmayer, R., and Worrest, R. W. Conflict-Resolution Strategies for Nonhierarchical Distributed Agents. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence II, Gasser, L. and Huhns, M. N., (eds.). Pitman Publishing, London, (1989) 139–161.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Barber, K. S.: The Architecture for Sensible Agents. In Proceedings of International Multidisciplinary Conference, Intelligent Systems: A Semiotic Perspective (Gaithersburg, MD, 1996) National Institute of Standards and Technology, 49–54.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Barber, K. S., Goel, A., and Martin, C. E. The Motivation for Dynamic Adaptive Autonomy in Agent-based Systems. In Proceedings of the 1st Asia-Pacific Conference on IAT, Hong Kong, December 14–17, 1999., Liu, J. and Zhong, N., (eds.). 131–140.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Barber, K. S., Liu, T. H., and Han, D. C. Agent-Oriented Design. In Multi-Agent System Engineering. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Garijo, F. J. and Boman, M., (eds.). Springer, Berlin, (1999) 28–40.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Barber, K. S., Liu, T. H., and Han, D. C.: Strategy Selection-based Meta-level Reasoning, accepted to Agent Oriented Software Engineering 2000, Limerick, England, 2000,.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Barber, K. S. and Martin, C. E. Agent Autonomy: Specification, Measurement, and Dynamic Adjustment, Technical Report. TR99-UT-LIPS-AGENTS-09, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Booch, G. Object Oriented Design with Applications. Benjamin Cummings, Redwood City, CA, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chang, C., Chung, M. J., and Lee, B. H.: Collision voidance of Two General Robot Manipulators by Minimum Delay Time. IEEE Transactions on SMC, (1994) 517–522.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Conry, S. E., Meyer, R. A., and Lesser, V. R. Multistage Negotiation in Distributed Planning. In Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Bond, A. H. and Gasser, L., (eds.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Mateo, CA, (1988) 367–384.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Ephrati, E. and Rosenschein, J. S.: The Clarke Tax as a Consensus Mechanism Among Automated Agents. In Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Anaheim, CA. 1991) 173–178.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Ephrati, E. and Rosenschein, J. S.: Multi-Agents Planning as a Dynamic Search for Social Consensus. In Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1993) 423–429.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., and Vlisside, J. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Gasser, L. and Ishida, T.: A Dynamic Organizational Architecture for Adaptive Problem Solving. In Proceedings of Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (Anaheim, CA, 1991) 185–190.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Glaser, N. and Morignot, P. The Reorganization of Societies of Autonomous Agents. In Multi-agent Rationality. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, Boman, M. and van de Velde, W., (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, (1997) 98–111.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Grant, R. M. Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Blackwell Publishers Inc, Oxford, UK, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Ioannidis, Y. E. and Sellis, T. K.: Conflict Resolution of Rules Assigning Values to Virtual Attributes. In Proceedings of the 1989 ACM International Conference on the Managment of Data (Portland, Oregon., 1989) 205–214.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Jennings, N. R. Coordination Techniques for Distributed Artificial Intelligence. In Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Sixth-Generation Computer Technology Series, O’Hare, G. M. P. and Jennings, N. R., (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, (1996) 187–210.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Liu, T. H. Domain Independent Conflict Resolution for Dynamically Organized Multi-Agent Systems. PhD Dissertation, Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 2000.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Myerson, R. B. Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1991.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Ricciardi, A. M. and Birman, K. P. Process Membership in Asynchronous Environments. TR93-1328, Cornell University, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Rosenschein, J. S. and Zlotkin, G. Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation Among Computers. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Roy, B. From Optimization to Multicriteria Decision Aid: Three Main Operational Attitudes. In Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Thiriez, H. and Zionts, S. (eds.). Springer-Verlag(1976) 1–32.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Steeb, R., Cammarata, S., Hayes-Roth, F. A., Thorndyke, P. W., and Wesson, R. B. Architectures for Distributed Intelligence for Air Fleet Control. Technical Report R-2728-ARPA, Rand Corp., Santa Monica CA, 1981.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Steels, L. Cooperation Between Distributed Agents through Self-organization. In Decentralized A.I. Demazeau, Y. and Müller, J.-P., (eds.). Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, (1990) 175–196.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Sycara, K. P.: Utility Theory In Conflict Resolution. Annals of Operation Research, 12 (1988) 65–84.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Sycara, K. P. Multiagent Compromise via Negotiation. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence II, Gasser, L. and Huhns, M. N., (eds.). Pitman Publishing, London, (1989) 119–137.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Vincke, P., Gassner, M., and Roy, B. Multicriteria Decision-aid. John Wiley & Sons., Chichester, 1989.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Wooldridge, M. J., Jennings, N. R., and Kinny, D.: A Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Seattle, WA, 1999) ACM Press, 69–83.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Yu, P. L. Multiple-Criteria Decison Making: Concepts, Techniques, and Extensions. Plenum Press, New York, NY, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. S. Barber
    • 1
  • D. C. Han
    • 1
  • T. H. Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringThe University of Texas at Austin

Personalised recommendations