Improving Flexibility and Robustness in Agent Interactions: Extending Prometheus with Hermes

  • Christopher Cheong
  • Michael Winikoff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3914)


A crucial part of multi-agent system design is the design of agent interactions. Traditional approaches to designing agent interaction use interaction protocols, which focus on defining legal sequences of messages. Such approaches do not naturally exhibit flexibility and robustness, and are not a good match for intelligent software agents which are autonomous, proactive, flexible and robust. The Hermes approach to designing agent interaction uses interaction goals, actions, and a number of failure recovery mechanisms to give a design methodology which is a good fit with intelligent software agents. However, the Hermes approach only covers part of the design process. In this paper we integrate Hermes with the Prometheus methodology, thus providing a complete methodology for designing multi-agent systems where interaction design is goal-oriented, yielding flexible and robust interactions.


MultiAgent System Interaction Design Agent Type Customer Order Order Book 
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.
    Huget, M.P., Odell, J.: Representing agent interaction protocols with agent UML. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 16–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing Intelligent Agent Systems: A Practical Guide. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2004) ISBN 0-470-86120-7CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jennings, N., Kinny, D., Wooldridge, M., Zambonelli, F.: The Gaia methodology. In: Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishing, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: Tropos: An agentoriented software development methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8, 203–236 (2004)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Hermes: Designing goal-oriented agent interactions. In: Müller, J.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) AOSE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3950, pp. 16–27. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheong, C., Winikoff, M.: Hermes: Implementing goal-oriented agent interactions. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M.M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 168–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M., Poutakidis, D.: Adding debugging support to the Prometheus methodology. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18, 173–190 (2005); Special issue on Agent-oriented Software Development.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Padgham, L., Thangarajah, J., Winikoff, M.: Tool support for agent development using the Prometheus methodology. In: Proceedings of the First InternationalWorkshop on Integration of Software Engineering and Agent Technology, ISEAT (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AMAI) 42, 227–253 (2004); Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent SystemsMathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 527–534 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: A pragmatic approach to build conversation protocols using social commitments. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1242–1243 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flores, R.A., Kremer, R.C.: A principled modular approach to construct flexible conversation protocols. In: Tawfik, A.Y., Goodwin, S.D. (eds.) Canadian AI 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3060, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, S., Huber, M.J., Cohen, P.R.: Representing and executing protocols as joint actions. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 543–550. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R., Huber, M.J.: Direct execution of team specifications in STAPLE. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 567–568. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hutchison, J., Winikoff, M.: Flexibility and Robustness in Agent Interaction Protocols. In: Workshop on Challenges in Open Agent Systems at the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agents Systems (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Omicini, A.: SODA: Societies and infrastructures in the analysis and design of agent-based systems. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 185–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Cheong
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  1. 1.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations