How Do Agents Affect Modifiability? A Comparison between Two Architectures for Intelligent Virtual Environments for Training

  • Gonzalo Méndez
  • Angélica de Antonio
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5292)


The use of agents is spreading as a means to develop different kinds of software systems, among which we can find Intelligent Virtual Environments for Training. The agent community has already started to pay attention to software engineering issues to develop agent-oriented systems, but they are mainly focused on methodologies and, to some extent, design patterns. However, not much attention has been paid to software architecture for the moment. We compare two agent-based software architectures for Intelligent Virtual Environments for Training that are intended to be easily extended and modified. The first one was designed using an organizational approach recommended by some agent oriented methodologies. The second one is a redesign of the first architecture using more formal principles and methods of software architecture design. A comparison between both architectures highlights the need to pay more attention to software architecture design in this field.


Virtual Environment Multiagent System Software Architecture Intelligent Tutoring System Agent Platform 
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.
    Sleeman, D., Brown, J. (eds.): Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Academic Press, London (1982)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wenger, E.: Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring Systems. Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Los Altos (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Munro, A., Surmon, D., Johnson, M., Pizzini, Q., Walker, J.: An open architecture for simulation-centered tutors. In: Proc. of AIED 1999: 9th Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Le Mans, France, pp. 360–367 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendez, G., Rickel, J., de Antonio, A.: Steve meets jack: the integration of an intelligent tutor and a virtual environment with planning capabilities. In: Rist, T., Aylett, R.S., Ballin, D., Rickel, J. (eds.) IVA 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2792, pp. 325–332. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendez, G., Herrero, P., de Antonio, A.: Intelligent virtual environments for training in nuclear power plants. In: Proc. of the 6th Intl. Conf. on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2004), Porto, Portugal (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mendez, G., de Antonio, A.: Training agents: an architecture for reusability. In: Panayiotopoulos, T., Gratch, J., Aylett, R.S., Ballin, D., Olivier, P., Rist, T. (eds.) IVA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3661, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Antonio, A., Ramirez, J., Mendez, G.: An Agent-Based Architecture for Virtual Environments for Training. In: Developing Future Interactive Systems, pp. 212–233. Idea Group (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fikes, R.E., Nilsson, N.J.: Strips: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 2(3-4), 189–208 (1971)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nau, D., Au, T., Ilghami, O., Kuter, U., Murdock, W., Wu, D., Yaman, F.: Shop2: An htn planning system. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 20, 379–404 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Software engineering with agents: Pitfalls and pratfalls. IEEE Internet Computing 3(3), 20–27 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bass, L., Clements, P., Kazman, R.: Software Architecture in Practice, 2nd edn. SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clements, P., Kazman, R., Klein, M.: Evaluating Software Architectures. The SEI Series in Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parnas, D.L.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parnas, D.L.: On a ‘buzzword’: Hierarchical structure. In: Information Processing 1974, Proceedings of IFIP Congress 1974, pp. 336–339 (1974)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agre, P.E.: Hierarchy and history in simon’s “architecture of complexity”. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(3), 413–426 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Haythorn, W.: What is object-oriented design? Journal of Object Oriented Programming 7(1), 67–78 (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hayden, S., Carrick, C., Yang, Q.: Architectural design patterns for multi-agent coordination. In: Proc. of the 3rd Intl. Conf. on Agent Systems (Agents 1999) (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    los Arcos, J.L., Muller, W., Fuente, O., Orúe, L., Arroyo, E., Leaznibarrutia, I., Santander, J.: Lahystotrain: Integration of virtual environments and its for surgery training. In: Gauthier, G., VanLehn, K., Frasson, C. (eds.) ITS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1839, pp. 43–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rickel, J., Johnson, W.L.: Animated agents for procedural training in virtual reality: Perception, cognition, and motor control. Applied Artificial Intelligence 13, 343–382 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shaw, E., Johnson, W., Ganeshan, R.: Pedagogical agents on the web. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 283–290. ACM Press, New York (May 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lester, J., Voerman, J., Towns, S., Callaway, C.: Cosmo: A life-like animated pedagogical agent with deictic believability. In: IJCAI 1997 Workshop on Animated Interface Agents: Making them Intelligent, Nagoya, Japan (August 1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lester, J., Stone, B., Stelling, G.: Lifelike pedagogical agents for mixed-initiative problem solving in constructivist learning environments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 9(1–2), 1–44 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paiva, A., Machado, I.: Life-long training with vincent, a web-based pedagogical agent. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 12(1) (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang, D., Alem, L., Yacef, K.: Using multi-agent approach for the design of an intelligent learning environment. In: Wobcke, W., Pagnucco, M., Zhang, C. (eds.) Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Formalisms, Methodologies, and Applications. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1441, pp. 221–230. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Webber, C., Pesty, S.: A two-level multi-agent architecture for a distance learning environment. In: de Barros Costa, E. (ed.) Workshop on Architectures and Methodologies for Building Agent-based Learning Environments (ITS 2002), pp. 26–38 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buche, C., Querrec, R., Loor, P.D., Chevaillier, P.: Mascaret: A pedagogical multi-agent system for virtual environments for training. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies 2(4), 41–61 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evers, M., Nijholt, A.: Jacob - an animated instruction agent in virtual reality. In: Tan, T., Shi, Y., Gao, W. (eds.) ICMI 2000. LNCS, vol. 1948, pp. 526–533. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cheikes, B.: Gia: An agent-based architecture for intelligent tutoring systems. In: Finin, T., Mayfield, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the CIKM 1995 Workshop on Intelligent Information Agents, Baltimore, Maryland (1995)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Genesereth, M.: An agent-based approach to software interoperability. Technical Report Logic–91–6, Logic Group Computer Science Department, Stanford University (1993)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boucke, N., Weyns, D., Schelfthout, K., Holvoet, T.: Applying the atam to an architecture for decentralized control of a transportation system. In: Hofmeister, C., Crnković, I., Reussner, R. (eds.) QoSA 2006. LNCS, vol. 4214, pp. 181–199. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woods, S.G., Barbacci, M.: Architectural evaluation of collaborative agent-based systems. Technical Report CMU/SEI-99-TR-025, CMU/SEI (1999)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wojcik, R., Bachmann, F., Bass, L., Clements, P., Merson, P., Nord, R., Wood, B.: Attribute-driven design (add), version 2.0. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2006-TR-023, CMU/SEI (2006)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Herrero, P., de Antonio, A.: Keeping watch: Intelligent virtual agents reflecting human-like perception in cooperative information systems. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C. (eds.) CoopIS 2003, DOA 2003, and ODBASE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888, pp. 129–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Imbert, R., de Antonio, A.: Using progressive adaptability against the complexity of modeling emotionally influenced virtual agents. In: Proc. of the 18th Intl. Conf. on Computer Animation and Social Agents (CASA 2005) (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonzalo Méndez
    • 1
  • Angélica de Antonio
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science SchoolTechnical University of Madrid 

Personalised recommendations