Abstract

In a multiagent system agents negotiate with one another to distribute the work in an attempt to balance the incompatible goals of optimising the quality of the result, optimising system performance, maximising payoff, providing opportunities for poor performers to improve and balancing workload. This distribution of work is achieved by the delegation of responsibility for sub-processes by one agent to another. This leads to estimates of the probability that one agent is a better choice than another. The probability of delegating responsibility to an agent is then expressed as a function of these probability estimates. This apparently convoluted probabilistic method is easy to compute and gives good results in process management applications even when successive payoff measurements are unpredictably varied.

Keywords

Multiagent System Admissible Strategy Poor Performer Discrete Time Period Virtual Document 
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.
    Huhns, M.N., Singh, M.P.: Managing heterogeneous transaction workflows with cooperating agents. In: Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Agent Technology: Foundations, Applications and Markets, pp. 219–239. Springer, Berlin (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Norman, T.J., O’Brien, P., Odgers, B.: Autonomous Agents for Business Process Management. Int. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14(2), 145–189 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debenham, J.K.: Managing e-Market Negotiation in Context with a Multiagent System. In: Proceedings Twenty First International Conference on Knowledge Based Systems and Applied Artificial Intelligence, ES 2002: Applications and Innovations in Expert Systems X, Cambridge UK (December 2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Durfee, E.H.: Distributed Problem Solving and Planning. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multi-Agent Systems, The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dellarocas, C.: Contractual Agent Societies: Negotiated shared context and social control in open multi-agent systems. In: Workshop on Norms and Institutions inMulti-Agent Systems, 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (Agents 2000), Barcelona, Spain (June 2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galstyan, A., Kolar, S., Lerman, K.: Resource allocation games with changing resource capacities. In: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 145–152 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kumar, A., van der Aalst, W.M.P., Verbeek, H.M.W.: Dynamic Work Distribution inWorkflow Management Systems: How to Balance Quality and Performance? Journal of Management Information Systems 18(3), 157–193 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain, A.K., Aparicio, M., Singh, M.P.: Agents for Process Coherence in Virtual Enterprises. Communications of the ACM 42(3), 62–69 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wooldridge, M.: Multiagent Systems. Wiley, Chichester (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Debenham
    • 1
  • Simeon Simoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of ITUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations