Detecting conflicts in multi-agent systems

  • Love Ekenberg
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1286)


When a set of autonomous agents are going to decide on a global plan, it may be difficult to determine whether the set of common goals is nonempty. Furthermore, even if the combined plan is consistent, it may be hard to determine the set of common goals. We present a formal framework for the analysis of conflicts in sets of autonomous agents restricted in the sense that they can be described by first-order formulae and transaction mechanisms. In this framework, we allow for enrichment of agent systems with correspondence assertions, expressing the relationship between different entities in the formal specifications of the agents. Thereafter the specifications are analysed with respect to conflictfreeness. If two specifications are conflictfree, the formulae of one specification together with the set of correspondence assertions do not restrict the models of the other specification, i.e. the agent system does not restrict the individual agents. The approach takes into account static as well as dynamic aspects of the concept of conflictfreeness.


Multi-agent system conflict detection conceptual schema theorem proving 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    S. Abiteboul and V. Vianu, “Equivalence and Optimization of Relational Transactions,” Journal of ACM, vol. 35, pp. 130–145, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    CCITT, CCITT Recommendation 2100: Specification and Description Language SDL (Blue Book, Volume X.1-X.5): ITU General Secretariat-Sales Section, Places des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 20, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    G. Davies and L. Ekenberg, “Using First-Order Theorem Proving for Analysing Transaction Systems,” Technical Report, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    B. Dreben and W. D. Goldfarb, The Decision Problem: Solvable Classes of Quantification Formulas: Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley, 1979.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Ekenberg and P. Johannesson, “Conflictfreeness as a Basis for Schema Integration,” Proceedings of CISMOD-95, pp. 1–13, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Ekenberg, M. Danielson, and M. Boman, “From Local Assessments to Global Rationality,” International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 5, nos. 2 & 3, pp. 315–331, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    L. Ekenberg and P. Johannesson, “A Formal Basis for Dynamic Schema Integration,” Proceedings of 15th International Conference on Conceptual Modelling ER'96, pp. 211–226, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    D. S. Johnson, “A Catalogue of Complexity Classes,” in Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science: Volume A. J. van. Leeuwen, Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M. J. Katz and J. S. Rosenschein, “Verifying Plans for Multiple Agents,” Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5, pp. 39–56, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Stålmarck, “System for Determining Propositional Logic Theorems by Applying Values and Rules to Triplets that are Generated from a Formula,” US. Patent No. 5 276 897 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Zlotkin and J. S. Rosenschein, “Incomplete Information and Deception in Multi-Agent Negotiation,” Proceedings of 12th IJLAI, pp. 225–231, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Love Ekenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.IIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisLaxenburgAustria

Personalised recommendations