Addressing Constraint Failures in Agent Interaction Protocol

  • Fadzil Hassan
  • Dave Robertson
  • Chris Walton
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4078)

Abstract

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 an agent protocol which enables agents to coordinate their actions in order to handle the dependencies that exist between their activities. An agent’s failure to comply with the constraints attached within the protocol might cause a brittle protocol to fail. To address this problem, a constraint relaxation approach is applied using a distributed protocol language called the Lightweight Coordination Calculus (LCC). This paper describes the design and implementation of a constraint relaxation module to be integrated within the LCC framework. The working of this module is later illustrated using a scenario involving the ordering and configuration of a computer between the customer and vendor agents.

Keywords

Brittleness Coherence Extractor 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Specification and verification of agent interaction using social integrity constraints. Theoretical Computer Science 85, 23 (2004)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H.V.D., Fleischer, M.: Modeling agents and their environment: the communication environment. Journal of Object Technology 2, 39–52 (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, B., Sadaoui, S.: A generic formal framework for multi-agent interaction protocols, University of Regina, Canada, Technical report TR 2003-05 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Estava, M., Rodriguez, J.A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P., Arcos, J.L.: On the formal specifications of electronic institutions, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 126–147 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greaves, M., Holmback, M., Bradshaw, J.: What is a conversation policy? In: Dignum, F., Greaves, F. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication, vol. 1990, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walton, C.D., Robertson, D.: Flexible multi-agent protocols, University of Edinburgh, Technical report EDI-INF-RR-0164 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    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
  8. 8.
    Robertson, D.: A lightweight coordination calculus for agent social norms. In: Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies (AAMAS), New York, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassan, F., Robertson, D.: Constraint relaxation to reduce brittleness of distributed agent protocols. In: Coordination in Emergent Agent Societies Workshop (CEAS 2004), held in conjunction with the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), Valencia, Spain (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Modi, P.J., Velose, M.: Bumping strategies for the multiagent agreement problem. In: Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, Netherland (July 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fruhwirth, T.: Theory and practice of constraint handling rules. The Journal of Logic Programming 37, 95–137 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    de Paula, G.E., Ramos, F.S., Ramalho, G.L.: Bilateral negotiation model for agent-mediated electronic commerce. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Cortés, U. (eds.) AMEC 2000. LNCS, vol. 2003, p. 1. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weib, G.: Cognition, sociability, and constraints. In: Hannebauer, M., Wendler, J., Pagello, E. (eds.) ECAI-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2103, p. 217. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sycara, K.P.: Multiagent systems. AI Magazine 19, 79–92 (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pruitt, D.: Negotiation behaviour. Academic Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jussien, N., Boizumault, P.: Implementing constraint relaxation over finite domains using assumption-based truth maintenance systems. In: Jampel, M., Maher, M.J., Freuder, E.C. (eds.) CP-WS 1995. LNCS, vol. 1106, pp. 265–280. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    SICStus Prolog User’s Manual. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of Computer Science (1999), http://www.sics.se/sicstus.html
  18. 18.
    Osman, N.Z.: Addressing constraint failures in distributed dialogue protocols, University of Edinburgh, MSc. Thesis (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fadzil Hassan
    • 1
  • Dave Robertson
    • 1
  • Chris Walton
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Intelligent Systems and their Applications (CISA), School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations