Constraint Relaxation Approach for Over-Constrained Agent Interaction

  • Mohd Fadzil Hassan
  • Dave Robertson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5351)


The interactions among agents in a multi-agent system for coordinating a distributed, problem solving task can be complex, as the distinct sub-problems of the individual agents are interdependent. A distributed protocol provides the necessary framework for specifying these interactions. In a model of interactions where the agents’ social norms are expressed as the message passing behaviours associated with roles, the dependencies among agents can be specified as constraints. The constraints are associated with roles to be adopted by agents as dictated by the protocol. These constraints are commonly handled using a conventional constraint solving system that only allows two satisfactory states to be achieved – completely satisfied or failed. Agent interactions then become brittle as the occurrence of an over-constrained state can cause the interaction between agents to break prematurely, even though the interacting agents could, in principle, reach an agreement. Assuming that the agents are capable of relaxing their individual constraints to reach a common goal, the main issue addressed by this research work is how the agents could communicate and coordinate the constraint relaxation process. The interaction mechanism for this is obtained by reinterpreting a technique borrowed from the constraint satisfaction field (i.e. distributed partial Constraint Satisfaction Problem), deployed and computed at the protocol level.


Over-constrained agent interaction brittle agent protocol Distributed Partial CSP and agent protocol 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Decker, K.S., Durfee, E.H., Lesser, V.: Evaluating research in cooperative distributed problem solving, Computer Science Technical Report 88-99, University of Massachusetts at Amherst (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freuder, E.C., Wallace, R.J.: Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 58, 21–70 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yokoo, M.: Distributed constraint satisfaction: foundations of cooperation in multi-agent systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sycara, K.P.: Multiagent systems. AI Magazine 19, 79–92 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aldea, A., Lopez, B., Moreno, A., et al.: A multi-agent system for organ transplant coordination. In: Proceedings of the VIII European Conference on AI in Medicine, Carcais, Portugal (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Macho-Gonzales, S., Torrens, M., Faltings, B.: A multi-agent recommender system for planning meetings. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent-based Recommender Systems (WARS 2000), Barcelona, Spain (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luo, X., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N., et al.: A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence 148, 53–102 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meseguer, P., Bouhmala, N., Bouzoubaa, T., et al.: Current approaches for solving over-constrained problems. Constraints 8, 9–39 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hirayama, K., Yokoo, M.: Distributed partial constraint satisfaction problem. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (CP 1997), Linz, Austria (1997) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faratin, P., Klein, M.: Automated contract negotiation and execution as a system of constraints. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Distributed Constraint Reasoning, at IJCAI 2001, Seattle, USA (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Silva, L.P.: Extending agents by transmitting protocols in open systems. RMIT University, Melbourne (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freire, J., Botelho, L.: Executing explicitly represented protocols. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Challenges in Open Systems at AAMAS 2002, Bologna, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGinnis, J.P.: On the mutability of protocols, in CISA. University of Edinburgh, School of Informatics (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robertson, D.: A lightweight coordination calculus for agent social norms. In: Proceedings of the Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies at AAMAS 2004, New York, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Esteva, M., Padget, J., Sierra, C.: Formalizing a language for institutions and norms. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 348–366. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cabri, G., Ferrari, L., Zambonelli, F.: Role-based approaches for engineering interactions in large-scale multi-agent systems. In: Lucena, C., Garcia, A., Romanovsky, A., Castro, J., Alencar, P.S.C. (eds.) SELMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2940, pp. 243–263. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    SICS, SICStus Prolog User’s Manual. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS) (1999),
  18. 18.
    Carrieno, N., Gelernter, D.: Linda in context. Communications of the ACM 32, 444–458 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Modi, P.J., Veloso, M.: Bumping strategies for the multiagent agreement problem. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohd Fadzil Hassan
    • 1
  • Dave Robertson
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer and Information Sciences DepartmentUniversiti Teknologi PETRONASTronohMalaysia
  2. 2.Center for Intelligent Systems and their Applications (CISA), School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations