Advertisement

Social Commitment Delegation and Monitoring

  • Özgür Kafalı
  • Paolo Torroni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6814)

Abstract

The success of contract-based multiagent systems relies on agents complying with their commitments. When something goes wrong, it is important to understand what are the commitments’ mutual relations as well as their individual states. Accordingly, we explore how commitments are related through the three-agent commitment delegation operation. We then propose exception monitoring based on such relations, and demonstrate it via a case study.

Keywords

Multiagent System Similarity Relation Autonomous Agent Temporal Constraint Rational Delegation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In: IJCAI 2009: 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 91–96 (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: A logic-based, reactive calculus of events. Fundamenta Informaticae 105(1-2), 135–161 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chopra, A.K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Reasoning about agents and protocols via goals and commitments. In: AAMAS 2010: 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 457–464 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Constitutive interoperability. In: AAMAS 2008: 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 797–804 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Multiagent commitment alignment. In: AAMAS 2009: 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 937–944 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dastani, M., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Role-assignment in open agent societies. In: AAMAS 2003: 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 489–496 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedrich, G.: Repair of service-based processes – an application area for logic programming. The ALP Newsletter (December 2010), http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/ALP
  8. 8.
    Gelati, J., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G., Governatori, G.: Normative autonomy and normative co-ordination: Declarative power, representation, and mandate. Artificial Intelligence & Law 12(1-2), 53–81 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kafalı, Ö., Chesani, F., Torroni, P.: What happened to my commitment? Exception diagnosis among misalignment and misbehavior. In: Dix, J., Leite, J., Governatori, G., Jamroga, W. (eds.) CLIMA XI. LNCS, vol. 6245, pp. 82–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kafalı, Ö., Toni, F., Torroni, P.: Reasoning about exceptions to contracts. In: Leite, F., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G., van der Torre, L. (eds.) CLIMA XII 2011. LNCS, vol. 6814, pp. 225–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kafalı, Ö., Torroni, P.: Diagnosing commitments: Delegation revisited (extended abstract). In: AAMAS 2011: 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1175–1176 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lorini, E.: A logical analysis of commitment dynamics. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS, vol. 6181, pp. 288–305. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Winikoff, M.: Goals in agent systems: a unifying framework. In: AAMAS 2008: 7th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 713–720 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Singh, M.P.: Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: Fox, D., Gomes, C.P. (eds.) AAAI 2008: 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 176–181. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M.: Social commitments in time: Satisfied or compensated. In: Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Lloyd, J. (eds.) DALT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5948, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: AAMAS 2002: 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 527–534 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Özgür Kafalı
    • 1
  • Paolo Torroni
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBoğaziçi UniversityBebekTurkey
  2. 2.DEISUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations