Congress of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence

AI*IA 2015 Advances in Artificial Intelligence pp 89-101 | Cite as

Empowering Agent Coordination with Social Engagement

  • Matteo Baldoni
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Federico Capuzzimati
  • Roberto Micalizio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9336)

Abstract

Agent coordination based on Activity Theory postulates that agents control their own behavior from the outside by using and creating artifacts through which they interact. Based on this conception, we envisage social engagements as first-class resources that agents exploit in their deliberative cycle (as well as beliefs, goals, intentions), and propose to realize them as artifacts that agents create and manipulate along the interaction, and that drive the interaction itself. Consequently, agents will base their reasoning on their social engagement, instead of relying on event occurrence alone. Placing social engagement at the center of coordination promotes agent decoupling and also the decoupling of the agent specifications from the specification of their coordination. The paper also discusses JaCaMo+, a framework that implements this proposal.

Keywords

Social engagement Commitments Agents and artifacts Agent programming Implementation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F.: A Commitment-based Infrastructure for Programming Socio-Technical Systems. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, Special Issue on Foundations of Social Computing 14(4), 23:1–23:23 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F.: Typing multi-agent systems via commitments. In: Dalpiaz, F., Dix, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B. (eds.) EMAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8758, pp. 388–405. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Leveraging commitments and goals in agent interaction. In: Ancona, D., Maratea, M., Mascardi, V. (eds.) Proc. of XXX Italian Conference on Computational Logic, CILC (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Composing and verifying commitment-based multiagent protocols. In: Wooldridge, M., Yang, Q. (eds.) Proc. of 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July 25–31, 2015Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E., Patti, V., Capuzzimati, F.: Engineering commitment-based business protocols with the 2CL methodology. JAAMAS 28(4), 519–557 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H., Hbner, J.F., Ricci, A., Santi, A.: Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming 78(6), 747–761 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bordini, R.H., Fred Hübner, J., Wooldridge, M.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. John Wiley & Sons (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buccafurri, F., Caminiti, G.: Logic programming with social features. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP) 8(5–6), 643–690 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F.P.M.: Autonomous norm acceptance. In: Papadimitriou, C., Singh, M.P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1555, pp. 99–112. Springer, Heidelberg (1999) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Criado, N., Argente, E., Noriega, P., Botti,: Reasoning about norms under uncertainty in dynamic environments. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dastani, M., Grossi, D., Meyer, J.-J.C., Tinnemeier, N.A.M.: Normative multi-agent programs and their logics. In: Normative Multi-Agent Systems, 15.03. - 20.03.2009. Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Germany, vol. 09121 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolving cross-organizational business processes. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 19(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., Punamäki, R.-L. (eds.): Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999) Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meneguzzi, F., Luck, M.: Norm-based behaviour modification in BDI agents. In: AAMAS, vol. 1, pp. 177–184. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molesini, A., Omicini, A., Denti, E., Ricci, A.: \(\sf SODA\): a roadmap to artefacts. In: Dikenelli, O., Gleizes, M.-P., Ricci, A. (eds.) ESAW 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3963, pp. 49–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2006) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Okouya, D., Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: An infrastructure for the design and development of open interaction systems. In: Winikoff, M. (ed.) EMAS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8245, pp. 215–234. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M.: Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. JAAMAS 17(3), 432–456 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ricci, A., Piunti, M., Viroli, M.: Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 23(2), 158–192 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh, M.P.: Commitments in multiagent systems some controversies, some prospects. In: Paglieri, F., Tummolini, L., Falcone, R., Miceli, M. (eds.) The Goals of Cognition. Essays in Honor of Cristiano Castelfranchi, vol. 31, pp. 601–626. College Publications, London (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P., Yorke-Smith, N.: Relating goal and commitment semantics. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds.) ProMAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7217, pp. 22–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Telang, P.R., Yorke-Smith, N., Singh, M.P.: Relating goal and commitment semantics. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds.) Programming Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS, vol. 7212, pp. 22–37. Springer, Heidelberg (2012) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J.: Environment as a first class abstraction in multiagent systems. JAAMAS 14(1), 5–30 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zatelli, M.R., Hübner, J.F.: The interaction as an integration component for the JaCaMo platform. In: Dalpiaz, F., Dix, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B. (eds.) EMAS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8758, pp. 431–450. Springer, Heidelberg (2014) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Baldoni
    • 1
  • Cristina Baroglio
    • 1
  • Federico Capuzzimati
    • 1
  • Roberto Micalizio
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations