Resolving Commitments among Autonomous Agents

  • Ashok U. Mallya
  • Pınar Yolum
  • Munindar P. Singh
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2922)


Commitments are a powerful representation for modeling multiagent interactions. Previous approaches have considered the semantics of commitments and how to check compliance with them. However, these approaches do not capture some of the subtleties that arise in real-life applications, e.g., e-commerce, where contracts and institutions have implicit temporal references. The present paper develops a rich representation for the temporal content of commitments. This enables us to capture realistic contracts and institutions rigorously, and avoid subtle ambiguities. Consequently, this approach enables us to reason about whether and when exactly a commitment is satisfied or breached and whether it is or ever becomes unenforceable.


Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Atomic Proposition Business Rule Computation Tree Logic 
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.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 535–542. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: Enabling open Web-based multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2, 217–236 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Partee, B.: Nominal and temporal anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 287–324 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Emerson, E.A.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 995–1072. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Proceedings of the AAAI-1993 Workshop on AI and Theories of Groups and Organizations: Conceptual and Empirical Research (1993)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen, J.F.: Maintaining knowledge about temporal intervals. Communications of the ACM 26, 832–843 (1983)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dignum, F., Weigand, H., Verharen, E.: Meeting the deadline: On the formal specification of temporal deontic constraints. In: Michalewicz, M., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 1996. LNCS, vol. 1079, pp. 243–252. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grosof, B.N., Labrou, Y., Chan, H.Y.: A declarative approach to business rules in contracts: Courteous logic programs in XML. In: Wellman, M.P. (ed.) Proceedings 1st Annual ACM Conf. on Electronic Commerce, EC 1999, Denver, CO, USA, November 3-5, ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Dalal, S., Temel, S., Little, M., Potts, M., Webber, J.: Coordinating business transactions on the web. IEEE Internet Computing 7, 30–39 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Posit spaces: A performative model of e-commerce. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh, M.P.: Multiagent systems as spheres of commitment. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS) Workshop on Norms, Obligations, and Conventions (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., McCain, N., Lifschitz, V., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence, AIJ (2003) (to appear)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chopra, A., Singh, M.: Nonmonotonic commitment machines. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 183–200. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashok U. Mallya
    • 1
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 2
  • Munindar P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations