Producing Enactable Protocols in Artificial Agent Societies

  • George K. Lekeas
  • Christos Kloukinas
  • Kostas Stathis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7047)


This paper draws upon our previous work [7, 16] in which we proposed the organisation of services around the concept of artificial agent societies and presented a framework for representing roles and protocols using LTSs. The agent would apply for a role in the society, which would result in its participation in a number of protocols. We advocated the use of the games-based metaphor for describing the protocols and presented a framework for assessing the admission of the agent to the society on the basis of its competence. In this work we look at the subsequent question: what information should the agent receive upon entry?. We can not provide it with the full protocol because of security and overload issues. Therefore, we choose to only provide the actions pertinent to the protocols that the role the agent applied for participates in the society. We employ branching bisimulation for producing a protocol equivalent to the original one with all actions not involving the role translated into silent (τ) actions. However, this approach sometimes results in non-enactable protocols. In this case, we need to repair the protocol by adding the role in question as a recipient to certain protocol messages that were causing the problems. We present three different approaches for repairing protocols, depending on the number of messages from the original protocol they modify. The modified protocol is adopted as the final one and the agent is given the role automaton that is derived from the branching bisimulation process.


Agent Society Label Transition System Original Protocol Local View Silent Action 
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.
    Bouaziz, W.: Une Ontologie de Protocoles pour la Coordination de Systèmes Distribués. In: Journées Francophones sur les Ontologies (JFO), Sousse, Tunisie, 18/10/07-20/10/07. pp. 231–246. Centre de Publication Universitaire (October 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouaziz, W., Andonoff, E.: Dynamic Execution of Coordination Protocols in Open and Distributed Multi-Agent Systems. In: Håkansson, A., Nguyen, N.T., Hartung, R.L., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5559, pp. 609–618. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davidsson, P., Johansson, S.: On the potential of norm-governed behavior in different categories of artificial societies. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 12(2-3), 169–180 (2006), CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A.U., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12), 1015–1027 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A.: Verifying Agents’ Conformance with Multiparty Protocols. In: Fisher, M., Sadri, F., Thielscher, M. (eds.) CLIMA IX. LNCS, vol. 5405, pp. 17–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goradia, V., Mowry, B., Kang, P., Panjwani, M., Lowe, D., Somogyi, A., Magruder, P., Wagner, T., McNeil, D., Yang, C., Arms, W., Sirbu, M., Tygar, D.: Netbill 1994 prototype. TR 1994-11, Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kloukinas, C., Lekeas, G., Stathis, K.: From agent game protocols to implementable roles. In: EUMAS 2008, Sixth European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Bath, UK, pp. 1–15 (December 2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Generation Computing 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.J.: Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence, pp. 26–45 (1987)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milner, R.: A Calculus of Communicating Systems. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., Secaucus (1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murata, T.: Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 77(4), 541–580 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nwana, H.S.: Software agents: An overview. Knowledge Engineering Review 11(3), 205–244 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sangiorgi, D.: On the origins of bisimulation and coinduction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 31, 15:1–15:41 (2009), CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sibertin-Blanc, C., Hameurlain, N.: Participation Components for Holding Roles in Multiagent Systems Protocols. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3451, pp. 60–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stathis, K.: Game–based development of interactive systems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computing, Imperial College London (November 1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stathis, K., Lekeas, G., Kloukinas, C.: Competence Checking for the Global E-Service Society Using Games. In: O’Hare, G.M.P., Ricci, A., O’Grady, M.J., Dikenelli, O. (eds.) ESAW 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4457, pp. 384–400. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3), 217–236 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weiser, M.: The world is not a desktop. ACM Interactions 1(1), 7–8 (1994), CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • George K. Lekeas
    • 1
  • Christos Kloukinas
    • 1
  • Kostas Stathis
    • 2
  1. 1.City University LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Royal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations