The reorganization of societies of autonomous agents

  • Norbert Glaser
  • Philippe Morignot
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1237)


This paper investigates the skills of autonomous agents to reorganize their society as answer to environmental changes. The reorganization of an agent society can be motivated by the desire to reduce conflicts within inter-agent cooperation and to increase the efficiency in achieving goals. Our interest is centered on situations where new agents want to join an existing agent society which has established conventions for agent cooperation. Joining an agent society means that the society can draw benefits from the interaction with the new members having competencies which are complementary to the society ones; both, the society and the new members, need to agree on a new convention. We introduce a method for reorganization based on the principle of punishment: a society punishes or favors the behaviors of its new members.


Autonomous agents modeling reorganization adaptation reinforcement 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Adler, E. Durfee, M. Huhns, W. Punch, and E. Simoundis. AAAI workshop on cooperation among heterogeneous intelligent agent. AI Magazine, 13(2):39–42, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    T. Bouron and A. Collinot. SAM: a model to design computational social agents. In Proc. 10 th ECAI, Wien, Austria, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Castelfranchi. Guaranties for autonomy in cognitive agent architectures. In ECAI-94 workshop on ATAL, pages 56–70, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1994. LNAI Series, 890.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    V. Chevrier, R. Foisel, N. Glaser, and the research group MARCIA. Auto-organisation: Emergence de structures. In Journées du PRC IA sur les SMA, 1995. CRIN report 95-R-290.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Conte and C. Castelfranchi. Cognitive and Social Action. UCL Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K.S. Decker and V.R. Lesser. Designing a family of coordination algorithms. In Proc. 1 st ICMAS, pages 73–80, San Francisco, California, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Erceau and J. Ferber. L'intelligence artificielle distribuée. La Recherche, 22:750–758, 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Etzioni. Embedding Decision-Analytic Control in a Learning Architecture. Artificial Intelligence, 49:129–159, 1991.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.P. Fiske. The four elementary forms os sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99:689–723, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Franklin and A. Graesser. Is it an agent, or just a program?: A taxonomy for autonomous agents. In ECAI-96 workshop on ATAL, pages 21–36, Budapest, Hungary, 1996. LNAI Series, 1193.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.P. Gauthier. The Logic of Leviathan. Oxford University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Glaser. Contribution to Knowledge Acquisition and Modelling in a Multi-Agent Framework — The CoMoMAS Approach. PhD thesis, Université Henri Poincaré, Nancy I, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N. Glaser, V. Chevrier, and J.-P. Haton. Multi-agent modeling for autonomous but cooperative robots. In Proc. 1 st DIMAS, pages 175–182, Cracow, Poland, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Haken. Synergetics. An Introduction. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1990.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Hayes-Roth. An architecture for adaptive intelligent systems. Artificial Intelligence: Special Issue on Agents and Interactivity, 72:329–365, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Hobbes. Leviathan. Oxford University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N.R. Jennings. Towards a cooperation knowledge level for collaborative problem-solving. In Proc. 10 th ECAI, pages 224–228, Wien, Austria, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. Kaebling. Learning in Embedded Systems. MIT, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. LeStrugeon, C. Kolski, R. Mandiau, and M. Tendjaoui. Intelligent agents. In Second International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, pages 331–344, Juan-les-Pins, France, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Mantovani. Social context in HCI: A new framework for mental models, cooperation, and communication. Cognitive Science, 20:237–269, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T.A. Montgomery and E.H. Durfee. Using MICE to study intelligent dynamic coordination. In Proc. 2 nd IEEE Conf. on Tools for AI, pages 438–444, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ph. Morignot and B. Hayes-Roth. Why does an agent act: Adaptable motivations for goal selection and generation. In M. Freed and M. Cox, editors, AAAI Spring Symposium, Representing Mental States and Mechanisms, pages 97–101. Stanford, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J.P. Müller. The Design of Intelligent Agents: A Layered Approach, volume 1177 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    E. Oliveira, F. Mouta, and A.P. Rocha. Negotiation and conflict resolution within a community of cooperative agents. In Internat. Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems, Kawasaki, Japan, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In Proc. 1 st ICMAS, pages 312–319, San Francisco, California, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Russell. Rationality and intelligence. In Proc. 14 th IJCAI, Montréal, Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Schreiber, B.J. Wielinga, J.M. Akkermans, W. Van de Velde, and A. Anjewierden. CML: The CommonKADS conceptual modelling language. In Proc. 8 th European Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, pages 1–25, Hoegaarden, Belgium, 1994. LNAI Series, 867.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    G. Schreiber, B.J. Wielinga, R. de Hoog, H. Akkermans, and W. Van de Velde. Commonkads: A comprehensive methodology for KBS development. IEEE Expert, 9(6):28–37, 1994.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    P. Tsang. Foundation of Constraint Satisfaction. Academic Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    C.J.C.H. Watkins and P. Dayan. Q-learning. Machine Learning, 8:279–292, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Glaser
    • 1
  • Philippe Morignot
    • 2
  1. 1.CRIN/CNRS-INRIA LorraineVand∄uvre-lès-Nancy
  2. 2.Science and Technology Park of Crete Vassilika VoutonICS-FORTHCreteGreece

Personalised recommendations