Designing Institutional Multi-Agent Systems

  • Carles Sierra
  • John Thangarajah
  • Lin Padgham
  • Michael Winikoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4405)


The vision of agents working together on the Internet, in virtual organizations, is one that is increasingly common. However, one of the issues is the regulation of the participating agents and their behaviour. A substantial body of work exists that investigates agent societies and agent organizations, including work on electronic institutions, such as Islander and Ameli. However, although such work provides concrete tools for specifying and enacting institutions, there is a lack of clear documented guidance to designers who are using these tools. In this paper we describe a methodology for developing an institutional structure for multi agent systems. This methodology captures the knowledge and experience within the Islander group, and integrates it with the Prometheus methodology.


Multiagent System Travel Agent Social Design Electronic Institution Scene Type 
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.


  1. 1.
    Horling, B., Lesser, V.: A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. The Knowledge Engineering Review 19, 281–316 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Esteva, M.: Electronic Institutions: from specification to development. IIIA PhD Monography, vol. 19 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A.: On the Design and Construction of Agent-mediated Electronic Institutions. IIIA Phd Monography. vol. 14 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noriega, P.: Agent-Mediated Auctions: The Fishmarket Metaphor. IIIA Phd Monography, vol. 8 (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dignum, V.: A Model for Organizational Interaction. PhD thesis, Dutch Research School for Information and Knowledge Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esteva, M., de la Cruz, D., Sierra, C.: Islander: an electronic institutions editor. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2002), Bologna, Italy, pp. 1045–1052 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arcos, J.L., et al.: Engineering open environments with electronic institutions. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18, 191–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing Intelligent Agent Systems: A Practical Guide. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Padgham, L., Thangarajah, J., Winikoff, M.: Tool Support for Agent Development using the Prometheus Methodology. In: First international workshop on Integration of Software Engineering and Agent Technology (ISEAT 2005), Melbourne, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esteva, M., et al.: On the formal specification of electronic institutions. In: Sierra, C., Dignum, F.P.M. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 126–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., et al.: Fm96.5 a Java-based Electronic Auction House. In: Second International Conference on The Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM’97), pp. 207–224 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuní, G., et al.: MASFIT: Multi-agent Systems for Fish Trading. In: 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2004), Valencia, Spain, pp. 710–714 (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE’01), Toronto, pp. 249–263 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fox, M.S.: Organization structuring: Designing large complex software. Technical Report CMU-CS-79-155, Carnegie-Mellon University (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shehory, O., Kraus, S.: Methods for task allocation via agent coalition formation. Artificial Intelligence 101, 165–200 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chvatal, V.: A greedy heuristic for the set covering problem. Mathematics of Operations Research 4 (1979)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tambe, M.: Towards flexible teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7, 83–124 (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.): Agent-Oriented Methodologies. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.): Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems. The Agent-Oriented Software Engineering Handbook. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parunak, H., Odell, J.: Representing social structures in UML. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vazquez, J., Dignum, F.: Modelling electronic organizations. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, pp. 584–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 12, 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bellifemine, F., Poggi, A., Rimassa, G.: Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 89–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cremonini, M., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F.: Multi-agent systems on the Internet: Extending the scope of coordination towards security and topology. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1647, pp. 77–88. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ciancarini, P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F.: Multiagent system engineering: The coordination viewpoint. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, pp. 15–17. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hanachi, C., Sibertin-Blanc, C.: Protocol Moderators as Active Middle-Agents in Multi-Agent Systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 8 (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Omicini, A., et al.: Coordination artifacts: Environment-based coordination for intelligent agents. In: Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS’04), New York, USA, pp. 286–293 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carles Sierra
    • 1
  • John Thangarajah
    • 2
  • Lin Padgham
    • 2
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 2
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA), Spanish Research Council (CSIC), CataloniaSpain
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and Information Technology, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne, VIC 3001Australia

Personalised recommendations