Addressing the Brittleness of Agent Interaction

  • Mohd Fadzil Hassan
  • Dave Robertson
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5357)


The field of multi-agent systems shifts attention from one particular agent to a society of agents; hence the interactions between agents in the society become critical towards the achievement of their goals. We assume that the interactions are managed via a protocol which enables agents to coordinate their actions in order to handle the dependencies that exist between their activities. However, the agents’ failures to comply with the constraints imposed by the protocol may cause the agents to have brittle interactions. To address this problem, a constraint relaxation approach derived from the Distributed Partial Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) is proposed. This paper describes the computational aspects of the approach (i.e. specification of a distance metric, searching for a solvable problem and specification of a global distance function).


Brittle agent interaction constraint relaxation for agent interaction Distributed Partial CSP for computation of agent interaction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bocchi, L., Ciancarini, P.: A perspective on multiagent coordination models. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS, vol. 2650, pp. 146–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Omicini, A., Ossowski, S.: Objective versus subjective coordination in the engineering of agent systems. In: Klusch, M., Bergamaschi, S., Edwards, P., Petta, P. (eds.) Intelligent Information Agents. LNCS, vol. 2586, pp. 179–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    Sycara, K.P.: Multiagent systems. AI Magazine 19, 79–92 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Aldea, A., Lopez, B., Moreno, A., et al.: A multi-agent system for organ transplant coordination. In: Quaglini, S., Barahona, P., Andreassen, S. (eds.) AIME 2001. LNCS, vol. 2101, pp. 413–416. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yokoo, M.: Distributed constraint satisfaction: foundations of cooperation in multi-agent systems. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bistarelli, S., Freuder, E.C., O’Sullivan, B.: Encoding partial constraint satisfaction in the semiring-based framework for soft constraints. In: Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI 2004), Boca Raton, FL, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    SICS, SICStus Prolog User’s Manual. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of Computer Science (SICS) (1999),
  11. 11.
    Carrieno, N., Gelernter, D.: Linda in context. Communications of the ACM 32, 444–458 (1989)CrossRefGoogle 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 PETRONAS, Bandar Seri IskandarTronohMalaysia
  2. 2.Center for Intelligent Systems and their Applications (CISA), School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations