When to Use a Multi-Agent System?

  • Paul Bogg
  • Ghassan Beydoun
  • Graham Low
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5357)


The decision of which development approach to adopt (e.g. traditional, object oriented, agent oriented) is often taken after identifying the specific features of the problem. If agent oriented software engineering (AOSE) is to be taken seriously as a software engineering paradigm, then a clearly identifiable set of criteria of when to apply it, as distinguished from other alternatives such as object-oriented practices, is necessary. The paper is part of an effort to determine when is best to adopt a Multi Agent System approach, identifying a number of critical factors to include in a decision framework.


Mobile Agent Intrusion Detection System Social Entity Autonomous Entity Mars Rover 
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.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multi Agent Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horlait, E.: Mobile Agents for Telecommunication Applications (Innovative Technology Series: Information Systems and Networks). Kogan Page Science, Portland (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodriguez, J.A.: On The Design and Construction of Agent-Mediated Electronic Institutions. Artificial Intelligence Research Insitute, UAB - Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guessoum, Z., Rejeb, L., Durand, R.: Using adaptive Multi-Agent Systems to Simulate Economic Models. In: AAMAS 2004. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeLoach, S.A., Kumar, M.: Multi-Agent Systems Engineering: An Overview and Case Study. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 236–276. IDEA Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Zambonelli, F.: Multi-Agent Systems as Computational Organizations: The Gaia Methodology. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 136–171. IDEA Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Prometheus: A Practical Agent-Oriented Methodology. In: Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, pp. 107–135. IDEA Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: TROPOS: An Agent Oriented Software Development Methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8, 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Wolf, T., Holvoet, T.: Towards a full life-cycle methodology for engineering decentralise multi-agent systems. In: Fourth International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Methodologies, San Diego (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EUROSCOM: MESSAGE: Methodology for engioneering systems of software agents. Final guidelines for the identification of relevant problem areas where agent technology is appropriate. EUROSCOM Project Report P907 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Serugendo, G.D.M., Gleizes, M.-P., Karageorgos, A.: Self-Organisation in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 20, 165–189 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Asaka, M., Okazawa, S., Taguki, A., Goto, S.: A Method of Trading Intruders by Use of Mobile Agents. In: 9th Annual Conference of the Internet Society (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maston, E., DeLoach, S.: An Organization-Based Adaptive Information System for Battlefield Situational Analysis. In: Integration of Knowledge Intensive Multi-Agent Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walton, D.: The New Dialectic (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuní, G., Esteva, M., Garcia, P., Puertas, E., Sierra, C., Solchaga, T.: MASFIT: Multi-Agent System for Fish Trading. In: Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beydoun, G., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G.C.: Developing and Evaluating a Generic Metamodel for MAS Work Products. In: Garcia, A., Choren, R., Lucena, C., Giorgini, P., Holvoet, T., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) SELMAS 2005. LNCS, vol. 3914, pp. 126–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reed, C., Boswell, B., Neville, R.: Multi-agent Patient Representation in Primary Care. In: Miksch, S., Hunter, J., Keravnou, E.T. (eds.) AIME 2005. LNCS, vol. 3581, pp. 375–384. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nourbakhsh, I., Lewis, M., Sycara, K., Koes, M., Yong, M., Burion, S.: Human-Robot Teaming for Search and Rescue. IEEE Pervasive Computing (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavon, J., Gomez-Sanz, J.: Agent Oriented Software Engineering with INGENIAS. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2691, pp. 394–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Bogg
    • 1
  • Ghassan Beydoun
    • 2
  • Graham Low
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesAustralia
  2. 2.University of WollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations