Exception Diagnosis Architecture for Open Multi-Agent Systems

  • Nazaraf Shah
  • Kuo-Ming Chao
  • Nick Godwin
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4408)


Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are collection of loosely coupled intelligent agents. These systems operate in a distributed, highly dynamic, unpredictable and unreliable environment in order to meet their overall goals. Agents in such an environment are vulnerable to different types of run time exceptions. It is necessary to have an effective exception diagnosis and resolution mechanism in place in order to ensure reliable interactions between agents. In this paper, we propose novel exception diagnosis architecture for open MAS. The proposed architecture classifies the runtime exceptions and diagnoses the underlying causes of exceptions using a heuristic classification technique. The proposed architecture is realised in terms of specialised exception diagnosing agents known as sentinel agents. The sentinel agents act as delegates of problem solving agents and mediate interactions between them.


Multiagent System Commitment Strategy Exception Handling Social Commitment Exceptional Event 
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.
    Clancy, W.J.: Heuristic Classification. Artificial Intelligence 27, 289–350 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shah, N., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., James, A.: Diagnosing Plan Failures in Multi-Agent Systems Using Abstract Knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, pp. 46–451. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA),
  4. 4.
    Hägg, S.: A Sentinel Approach to Fault Handling in Multi-Agent Systems. In: Dickson, L., Zhang, C. (eds.) DAI 1996. LNCS, vol. 1286, pp. 181–195. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaminka, G.A., Tambe, M.: What is Wrong with Us? Improving Robustness Through Social Diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 15th National conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 97–104 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, S., Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: The Adoptive Agent Architecture: Achieving Fault Tolerance Using Persistent Broker Teams. In: P roceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), USA, pp. 159–166 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horling, B., Lesser, V., Vincent, R., Bazzan, A., Xuan, P.: Diagnosis as an Integral Part of Multi-Agent Adaptability. In: Proceedings of DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, pp. 211–219 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein, M., Dellarocas, C.: Exception Handling in Agent Systems. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 62–68 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dellarocas, C., Klein, M., Juan, A.R.: An Exception-Handling Architecture for Open Electronic Marketplaces of Contract Net Software Agents. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, , pp. 225–232 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schroeder, M., Wagner, G.: Distributed Diagnosis by Vivid Agents. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents, California, United States, pp. 268–275 (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schroeder, M.: Autonomous, Model-Based Diagnosis Agents. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wagner, G.: A Logical and Operational Model of Scalable Knowledge-and Perception-Based Agents. In: Perram, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1996. LNCS, vol. 1038, pp. 26–41. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fröhlich, P., de Almeida Móra, I., Neijdl, W., Schröder, M.: Diagnostic Agents for Distributed Systems. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Schobbens, P.-Y. (eds.) ModelAge-WS 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1760, pp. 173–186. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guiagoussou, M., Soulhi, S.: Implementation of a Diagnostic and Troubleshooting Multi-agent System for Cellular Network. International Journal of Network Management, 221–237 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jennings, N.R., Cora, J.M., Laresgoiti, I., Mandani, E.H., Perriollat, F., Skarek, P., Varga, L.Z.: Using Archon to Develop Real-World DAI Applications, Part 1. IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 64–70 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roos, N., Teiji, A., Bos, A.: Multi-Agent Diagnosis with Spatially Distributed Knowledge. In: 14th Belgian-Dutch Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC’02), pp. 275–282 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roos, N., Teije, A., Witteveen, C.: A Protocol for Multi-Agent Diagnosis with Spatially Distributed Knowledge. In: AAMAS’03, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 655–661 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Letia, I.A., Craciun, F., Kope, Z., Netin, A.: Distributed Diagnosis by BDI Agents. In: IASTED International Conference Applied Informatics, Innsbruck, Austria, pp. 862–867 (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thottan, M., Ji, C.: Proactive Anomaly Detection Using Distributed Intelligent Agent. IEEE Network (Special Issue on Network Management), 21–27 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying Compliance with Commitment Protocol: Enabling Open Web-Based Multiagent Systems Protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3, 217–236 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fedoruk, A., Deters, R.: Improving Fault Tolerance by Replicating Agents. In: Proceedings of the first International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Bologna, Italy, pp. 737–744 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mishra, S., Huang, Y.: Fault Tolerance in Agent-Based Computing. In: Proceedings of the 13th ISCA International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, Las Vegas, NV (2000)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Elnozahy, E.N., Zwaenepoel, W.: Manetho: Transparent Rollback Recovery with Low Overhead, Limited Rollback and fast Output Commit. IEEE Transactions on Computers (Special Issue on Fault Tolerance Computing), 526–531 (1992)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu, P., Deters, R.: MAS and Fault-Management. In: International Symposium on Applications and the Internet (SAINT’04), Tokyo, Japan, pp. 283–286 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rustogi, S.K., Wan, F., Xing, J., Singh, M.P.: Handling Semantic Exceptions in the Large: A Multiagent Approach. Technical Report, TR-99-02, North Carolina State University at Raleigh, NC, USA (1999Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sundresh, T.S.: Semantic Reliability in Distributed AI Systems. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 798–803 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chia, M.H., Neiman, D.E., Lesser, V.R.: Poaching and Distraction in Asynchronous Agent Activities. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 88–95 (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Youssefmir, M., Huberman, B.: Resource Contention in Multiagent Systems. In: First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 398–403 (1995)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tripathi, A., Miller, R.: “Exception Handling in Agent-Oriented Systems. In: Romanovsky, A., et al. (eds.) Advances in Exception Handling Techniques, pp. 129–146. Springer, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Platon, E., Honiden, S., Sabouret, N.: Challenges in Exception Handling in Multi-Agent Systems. In: International Workshop on Software Engineering for Large-Scale Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 45–50. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shah, N., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., Younas, M., Laing, C.: Exception Diagnosis in Agent Based Grid Computing. In: Proceedings of 2004 IEEE International Conference on System, Man, and Cybernetic, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 3213–3219 (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shah, N., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., James, A.: Exception Diagnosis in Multi-Agent Systems. In: The IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 483–486 (2005)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification (2000),
  34. 34.
    FIPA Interaction Protocols Specification Protocols,
  35. 35.
    Singh, M.P.: An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems: Toward a Unification of Normative Concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    FIPA Agent Management Specification,
  37. 37.
    FIPA Travel Assistance Specifications (2001),
  38. 38.
    JACKTM Intelligent Agents, Agent Oriented Software shared/home/,
  39. 39.
    Shah, N., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., James, A., Huang, C.-L.: A Sentinel Based Exception Diagnosis in Market Based Multi-Agent Systems. In: Lee, J., Shim, J., Lee, S.-g., Bussler, C.J., Shim, S. (eds.) DEECS 2006. LNCS, vol. 4055, pp. 258–267. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shah, N., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., James, A., Tsai, C.-F.: An Empirical Evaluation of a Sentinel Based Approach to Exception Diagnosis in Multi-Agent Systems. In: 20th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA06), vol. 1, pp. 379–386. IEEE CS, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shortliffe, E.H.: Computer Based Medical Consultations: MYCIN. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1976)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nazaraf Shah
    • 1
  • Kuo-Ming Chao
    • 2
  • Nick Godwin
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Engineering Research Group, Sheffield Hallam University, SheffieldUK
  2. 2.DSM Research Group, Department of Computer and Network Systems Coventry University, CoventryUK

Personalised recommendations