Commitment-Based Service Coordination

  • Stefan J. Witwicki
  • Edmund H. Durfee
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5006)


We present a methodology for the composition of rich services that exhibit temporal uncertainty and complex task dependencies. Our multi-agent approach incorporates temporal and stochastic planning paradigms and commitment-based negotiation to achieve coordinated provision of services with stochastic outcomes. This is all captured within a service-choreography protocol, by which agents can request services and receive probabilistic temporal service promises, to iteratively converge on coordinated behavior. We argue that such an approach partially decouples the problems of negotiating service interactions and computing service policies, so as to more efficiently converge on good solutions.


Service Composition Markov Decision Process Service Request Temporal Planning Negotiation Protocol 
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.
    ter Beek, M.H., Bucchiarone, A., Gnesia, S.: A survey on service composition approaches: From industrial standards to formal methods. Technical Report 2006-TR-15 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rao, J., Su, X.: A survey of automated web service composition methods. In: SWSWPC, pp. 43–54 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papazoglou, M.P., Traverso, P., Dustdar, S., Leymann, F.: Service-oriented computing: State of the art and research challenges. Computer 40(11), 38–45 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vere, S.A.: Planning in time: Windows and durations for activities and goals. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. and Machine Intelligence 5, 246–267 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutilier, C., Dean, T., Hanks, S.: Planning under uncertainty: Structural assumptions and computational leverage. In: Ghallab, M., Milani, A. (eds.) New Directions in AI Planning, pp. 157–172. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsamardinos, I., Pollack, M.: Efficient solution techniques for disjunctive temporal problems (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stergiou, K., Koubarakis, M.: Backtracking algorithms for disjunctions of temporal constraints. Artificial Intelligence 120(1), 81–117 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kallenberg, L.: Linear Programming and Finite Markovian Control Problems. Math. Centrum, Amsterdam (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puterman, M.L.: Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Epenoux: A probabilistic production and inventory problem. Management Science 10, 98–108 (1963)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Witwicki, S., Durfee, E.: Commitment-driven distributed joint policy search. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Intl. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007), Honolulu, HI, pp. 480–487 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Musliner, D.J., Durfee, E.H., Wu, J., Dolgov, D.A., Goldman, R.P., Boddy, M.S.: Coordinated plan management using multiagent MDPs. In: Working Notes of the AAAI Spring Symp. on Distributed Plan and Schedule Management (March 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldman, C.V., Zilberstein, S.: Decentralized control of cooperative systems: Categorization and complexity analysis. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22, 143–174 (2004)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nair, R., Varakantham, P., Tambe, M., Yokoo, M.: Networked distributed POMDPs: A synthesis of distributed constraint optimization and POMDPs. In: AAAI 2005, pp. 133–139 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan J. Witwicki
    • 1
  • Edmund H. Durfee
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations