Advertisement

Programming Organization-Aware Agents

A Research Agenda
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
  • Koen Hindriks
  • Catholijn Jonker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5881)

Abstract

Organizational notions such as roles, norms (e.g., obligations and permissions), and services are increasingly viewed as natural concepts to manage the complexity of software development. In particular in the context of multi-agent systems, agents are expected to be organization-aware, i.e., to understand and reason about the structure, work processes, and norms of the agent organization in which they operate. In this paper, we analyze which kinds of reasoning an agent should be able to do to function in an organization. We categorize these kinds of reasoning with respect to several dimensions, and distinguish three general approaches on how these might be integrated in existing agent programming languages. Through this, we provide a research agenda on what needs to be addressed when developing techniques for programming organization-aware agents.

Keywords

Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Crisis Management Agent Programming International Joint Conference 
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.
    AOS group. Jack: an agent infrastructure for providing the decision-making capability for autonomous systems (whitepaper), http://www.aosgrp.com/downloads/JACK_WhitePaper_UKAUS.pdf
  2. 2.
    Arcos, J.L., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Engineering open environments with electronic institutions. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence 18(2), 191–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Boella, G., Genovese, V., Grenna, R., van der Torre, L.: How to program organizations and roles in the JADE framework. In: Bergmann, R., Lindemann, G., Kirn, S., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) MATES 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5244, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boissier, O., Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S.: Organization oriented programming: From closed to open organizations. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Ricci, A., O’Grady, M.J., Dikenelli, O. (eds.) ESAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4457, pp. 86–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A.: Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer, Berlin (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier, F., Jonker, C., Treur, J.: Formalization of a cooperation model based on joint intentions. In: Mueller, J., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N. (eds.) ATAL 1996. LNCS, vol. 1193, pp. 141–155. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., van der Torre, L.: Goal generation in the BOID architecture. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 428–447 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carabelea, C., Boissier, O., Castelfranchi, C.: Using social power to enable agents to reason about being part of a group. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3451, pp. 166–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carberry, S.: Techniques for plan recognition. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 11, 31–48 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Jonker, C., Treur, J.: Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, pp. 364–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dastani, M., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Role-assignment in open agent societies. In: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2003), Melbourne, pp. 489–496 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dastani, M.M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Hulstijn, J., Dignum, F.P.M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Enacting and deacting roles in agent programming. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 189–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Demolombe, R., Fernandez, A.M.O.: Intention recognition in the situation calculus and probability theory frameworks. In: Toni, F., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3900, pp. 358–372. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Jonker, C.: Towards agents for policy making. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Multi-Agent-Based Simulation, MABS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Open agent systems??? In: Luck, M., Padgham, L. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII. LNCS, vol. 4951, pp. 73–87. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dignum, F., Kinny, D., Sonenberg, L.: From desires, obligations and norms to goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3-4), 407–430 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dignum, V.: A Model for Organizational Interaction: Based on Agents, Founded in Logic. PhD thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: What’s in it for me? Agent deliberation on taking up social roles. In: Proceedings of the second European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, EUMAS 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.L.: AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 236–243. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F.: From agents to organizations: An organizational view of multi-agent systems. In: Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.J. (eds.) AOSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2935, pp. 214–230. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferguson, G., Allen, J.: Mixed-initiative systems for collaborative problem solving. AI Magazine 28(2) (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goultiaeva, A., Lespérance, Y.: Incremental plan recognition in an agent programming framework. In: Workshop on Plan, Activity, and Intent Recognition, PAIR 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hindriks, K.V., van Riemsdijk, M.B.: Satisfying maintenance goals. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4897, pp. 86–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hindriks, K., van Riemsdijk, M.B.: Using temporal logic to integrate goals and qualitative preferences into agent programming. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 215–232. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoogendoorn, M., Jonker, C., Popova, V., Sharpaskykh, A., Xu, L.: Formal modelling and comparing of disaster plans. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2005), pp. 97–107 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoogendoorn, M., Jonker, C., van Maanen, P., Sharpanskykh, A.: Formal analysis of empirical traces in incident management. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93, 1422–1433 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoogendoorn, M., Treur, J.: An adaptive multi-agent organization model based on dynamic role allocation. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT 2006), pp. 474–481. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hormazábal, N., Cardoso, H.L., de la Rosa, J.L., Oliveira, E.: An approach for virtual organizations’ dissolution. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on coordination, organization, institutions and norms in agent systems (COIN 2009@AAMAS), pp. 93–108 (2009)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: Using MOISE+ for a cooperative framework of MAS reorganisation. In: Bazzan, A.L.C., Labidi, S. (eds.) SBIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3171, pp. 506–515. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE+ model: programming issues at the system and agent levels. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 1(3/4), 370–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jennings, N.: Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artificial Intelligence Journal 74(2) (1995)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jonker, C., Treur, J.: From organisational structure to organisational behaviour formalisation. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (to appear, 2009)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Juan, T., Pearce, A.R., Sterling, L.: ROADMAP: extending the Gaia methodology for complex open systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 3–10. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kamara, L., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.: Norm-aware agents for ad hoc networks: A position paper. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS 2004 Workshop on Agents and Ubiquitous Computing (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klein, G., Woods, D.D., Bradshaw, J.M., Hoffman, R.R., Feltovich, P.J.: Ten challenges for making automation a “team player” in joint human-agent activity. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19(6), 91–95 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Laird, J.E.: It knows what you’re going to do: adding anticipation to a quakebot. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 385–392. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    López y López, F.: Social Power and Norms: Impact on Agent Behaviour. PhD thesis (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mathieu, E., Heffner, T.S., Goodwin, G., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.: The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology 85(2), 273–283 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Meneguzzi, F., Luck, M.: Norm-based behaviour modification in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009), Budapest, pp. 177–184 (2009)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mitchell, R.J. (ed.): Managing Complexity in Software Engineering. Institution of Electrical Engineers, UK (1990)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Munroe, S., Miller, T., Belecheanu, R.A., Pechoucek, M., McBurney, P., Luck, M.: Crossing the agent technology chasm: Experiences and challenges in commercial applications of agents. Knowledge Engineering Review 21(4), 345–392 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Myers, K., Yorke-Smith, N.: Proactivity in an intentionally helpful personal assistive agent. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2007 Spring Symposium on Intentions in Intelligent Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nair, R., Tambe, M., Marsella, S.: Team formation for reformation in multiagent domains like RoboCupRescue. In: Kaminka, G.A., Lima, P.U., Rojas, R. (eds.) RoboCup 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2752, pp. 150–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Okouya, D., Dignum, V.: OperettA: a prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2008), pp. 1677–1678. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2008)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Oomes, A.: Organization awareness in crisis management: dynamic organigrams for more effective disaster response. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (ISCRAM 2004), pp. 63–68 (2004)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: A goal deliberation strategy for BDI agent systems. In: Eymann, T., Klügl, F., Lamersdorf, W., Klusch, M., Huhns, M.N. (eds.) MATES 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3550, pp. 82–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rouse, W.B., Boff, K.R.: Organizational Simulation. Wiley, Chichester (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schurr, N., Patil, P., Pighin, F., Tambe, M.: Using multiagent teams to improve the training of incident commanders. In: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2006), Industry Track, Hakodate (2006)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sierhuis, M.: Modeling and Simulating Work Practice; Brahms: A multiagent modeling and simulation language for work system analysis and design. PhD thesis (2001)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sindlar, M., Dastani, M., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Mental state abduction of BDI-based agents. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5397, pp. 161–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sycara, K., Sukthankar, G.: Literature review of teamwork models. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-06-50, Carnegie Mellon University (2006)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Detecting and avoiding interference between goals in intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tinnemeier, N.A., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Orwell’s nightmare for agents? Programming multi-agent organisations. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Programming Multiagent Systems, ProMAS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tinnemeier, N.A., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Roles and norms for programming agent organizations. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009), Budapest, pp. 121–128 (2009)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Goals in conflict: Semantic foundations of goals in agent programming. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 18(3), 471–500 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vasconcelos, W.W., Sabater, J., Sierra, C., Querol, J.: Skeleton-based agent development for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 696–703. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vazquez-Salceda, J.: The Role of Norms and Electronic Institutions in Multi-Agent Systems: The HARMONIA Framework. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies and Autonomic Computing. Birkhäuser, Basel (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Aldewereld, H., Grossi, D., Dignum, F.: From human regulations to regulated software agents’ behavior. Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law 16(1), 73–87 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
    • 1
  • Koen Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn Jonker
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universiteit DelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations