Advertisement

Using Constraints and Process Algebra for Specification of First-Class Agent Interaction Protocols

  • Tim Miller
  • Peter McBurney
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4457)

Abstract

Current approaches to multi-agent interaction involve specifying protocols as sets of possible interactions, and hard-coding decision mechanisms into agent programs in order to decide which path an interaction will take. This leads to several problems, three of which are particularly notable: hard-coding the decisions about interaction within an agent strongly couples the agent and the protocols it uses, which means a change to a protocol involves a changes in any agent that uses such a protocol; agents can use only the protocols that are coded into them at design time; and protocols cannot be composed at runtime to bring about more complex interactions. To achieve the full potential of multi-agent systems, we believe that it is important that multi-agent interaction protocols exist at runtime in systems as entities that can be inspected, referenced, composed, and shared, rather than as abstractions that emerge from the behaviour of the participants. We propose a framework, called \(\mathcal{RASA}\), which regards protocols as first-class entities. In this paper, we present the first step in this framework: a formal language for specification of agent interaction protocols as first-class entities, which, in addition to specifying the order of messages using a process algebra, also allows designers to specify the rules and consequences of protocols using constraints. In addition to allowing agents to reason about protocols at runtime in order to improve their the outcomes to better match their goals, the language allows agents to compose more complex protocols and share these at runtime.

Keywords

Multiagent System Process Algebra Agent Interaction Interaction Protocol Protocol State 
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.
    Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system. In: Haddad, H.M., Omicini, A., Wainwright, R.L. (eds.) Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 72–78. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardiand, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J., Wolter, F.: Handbook of Modal Logic. Elsevier, North Holland (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cabac, L., Moldt, D.: Formal semantics for AUML agent interaction protocol diagrams. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Boer, F.S., Gabbrielli, M., Marchiori, E., Palamidessi, C.: Proving concurrent constraint programs correct. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 19(5), 685–725 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Boer, F.S., de Vries, W., Meyer, J-J.C., van Eijk, R.M., van der Hoek, W.: Process algebra and constraint programming for modelling interactions in MAS. Applicable Algebra in Engineering, Communication and Computing 16, 113–150 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A.U., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: OWL-P: A methodology for business process modeling and enactment. In: Workshop on Agent Oriented Information Systems, pp. 50–57 (July 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    d’Inverno, M., Kinny, D., Luck, M.: Interaction protocols in Agentis. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, pp. 112–119. IEEE Press, New York (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    FIPA: FIPA communicative act library specification (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoare, C.A.R.: Communicating Sequential Processes. Prentice-Hall International (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4, 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11(3), 315–334 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McGinnis, J., Robertson, D., Walton, C.: Protocol synthesis with dialogue structure theory. In: Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Second International Workshop. LNCS (LNAI), Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1980)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Milner, R.: Communicating and Mobile Systems: the Pi-Calculus. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Odell, J., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Bauer, B.: Extending UML for agents. In: Wagner, G., Lesperance, Y., Yu, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Agent-Oriented Information Systems Workshop at the 17th National conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3–17 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    OWL: Web Ontology Language (February 2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210
  19. 19.
    Paurobally, S., Cunningham, J., Jennings, N.R.: A formal framework for agent interaction semantics. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 91–98. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plotkin, G.: A structural approach to operational semantics. Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Aarhus University, Computer Science Department (September 1981)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reed, C., Norman, T.J., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiating the semantics of agent communications languages. Computational Intelligence 18(2), 229–252 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertson, D.: Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In: Demoen, B., Lifschitz, V. (eds.) ICLP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3132, pp. 416–430. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saraswat, V.A., Rinard, M., Panangaden, P.: Semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming. In: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 333–352. ACM Press, New York (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Serrano, J.M., Ossowski, S., Saugar, S.: Reusable components for implementing agent interactions. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., Fallah-Seghrouchni, A.E. (eds.) Programming Multi-Agent Systems, Third International Workshop, pp. 101–119 (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smith, G., Derrick, J.: Abstract specification in Object-Z and CSP. In: George, C.W., Miao, H. (eds.) ICFEM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2495, pp. 108–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Viroli, M., Ricci, A.: Instructions-based semantics of agent mediated interaction. In: Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., Tambe, M. (eds.) Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 102–109. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and AI 42(1–3), 227–253 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Miller
    • 1
  • Peter McBurney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZFUK

Personalised recommendations