Detecting Conflicts in Commitments

  • Akın Günay
  • Pınar Yolum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7169)


Commitments are being used widely to specify interaction among autonomous agents in multiagent systems. While various formalizations for a commitment and its life cycle exist, there has been little work that studies commitments in relation to each other. However, in many situations, the content and state of one commitment may render another commitment useless or even worse create conflicts. This paper studies commitments in relation to each other. Following and extending an earlier formalization by Chesani et al., we identify key conflict relations among commitments. The conflict detection can be used to detect violation of commitments before the actual violation occurs during agent interaction (run-time) and this knowledge can be used to guide an agent to avoid the violation. It can also be used during creation of multiagent contracts to identify conflicts in the contracts (compile-time). We implement our method in \(\mathcal{REC}\) and present a case study to demonstrate the benefit of our method.


Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Conditional State Agent Interaction Commitment State 
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.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: The sciff framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9, 1–43 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations. In: Lesser, V.R., Gasser, L. (eds.) ICMAS, pp. 41–48. The MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Commitment Tracking via the Reactive Event Calculus. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, pp. 91–96. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desai, N., Narendra, N.C., Singh, M.P.: Checking Correctness of Business Contracts via Commitments. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2008, vol. 2, pp. 787–794 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Operational Specification of a Commitment-Based Agent Communication Language. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2002, pp. 536–542. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A Logic-based Calculus of Events. New Generation Computing 4, 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mallya, A.U., Huhns, M.N.: Commitments Among Agents. IEEE Internet Computing 7, 90–93 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mallya, A.U., Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Resolving Commitments Among Autonomous Agents. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 166–182. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shanahan, M.: The Event Calculus Explained. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh, M.P.: Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles. Computer 31(12), 40–47 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh, M.P.: An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh, M.P.: Semantical Considerations on Dialectical and Practical Commitments. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2008, pp. 176–181. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., Harland, J.: Enhancing Commitment Machines. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 198–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible Protocol Specification and Execution: Applying Event Calculus Planning using Commitments. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2002, pp. 527–534. ACM (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akın Günay
    • 1
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBoğaziçi UniversityBebekTurkey

Personalised recommendations