Formalizing Commitments Using Action Languages

  • Tran Cao Son
  • Enrico Pontelli
  • Chiaki Sakama
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7169)


This paper investigates the use of high-level action languages for representing and reasoning about commitments in multi-agent domains. We introduce the language \({\cal L}^{mt}\), an extension of the language \(\cal L\), with new features motivated by the problem of representing and reasoning about commitments. The paper demonstrates how features and properties of commitments can be described in this action language. We show how \({\cal L}^{mt}\) can handle both simple commitment actions as well as complex commitment protocols. Furthermore, the semantics of \({\cal L}^{mt}\) provides a uniform solution to different problems in reasoning about commitments such as the problem of (i) verifying whether an agent fails (or succeeds) to deliver on its commitments; (ii) identifying pending commitments; and (iii) suggesting ways to satisfy pending commitments.


Transition Function Multiagent System Extended State Action Language Trigger Statement 
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.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E.: Commitment-Based Protocols with Behavioral Rules and Correctness Properties of MAS. In: Omicini, A., Sardina, S., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6619, pp. 60–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balduccini, M., Gelfond, M.: Diagnostic Reasoning with A-Prolog. TPLP 3(4,5) (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral, C., Gelfond, M., Provetti, A.: Representing Actions: Laws, Observations and Hypothesis. JLP 31(1-3) (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral, C., McIlraith, S., Son, T.C.: Formulating diagnostic problem solving using an action language with narratives and sensing. In: KR, pp. 311–322 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baral, C., Son, T.C., Tuan, L.C.: A transition function based characterization of actions with delayed and continuous effects. In: KR, pp. 291–302 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Int. Conf. on Multiagent Systems, pp. 41–48. The MIT Press (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In: IJCAI (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Contextualizing commitment protocol. In: AAMAS, pp. 1345–1352. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Representing and reasoning about commitments in business processes. In: AAAI, pp. 1328–1333 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Action languages. ETAI 3(6) (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Schwind, C.: Specifying and Verifying Interaction Protocols in a Temporal Action Logic. Journal App. Logic 5(2) (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mallya, A., 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
  13. 13.
    Mallya, A., Huhns, M.: Commitments among agents. IEEE Internet Comp. 7(4) (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Actions. MIT Press (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems. Artif. Int. Law 7(1) (1999)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.
    Torroni, P., et al.: Modelling interactions via commitments and expectations. In: Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 263–284. IGI Global (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Son, T.C., Pontelli, E., Sakama, C.: Formalizing Commitments Using Action Languages. Technical Report. NMSU-2010,
  19. 19.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: AAMAS, pp. 527–534. ACM (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tran Cao Son
    • 1
  • Enrico Pontelli
    • 1
  • Chiaki Sakama
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. Computer ScienceNew Mexico State UniversityMexico
  2. 2.Computer and Comm. SciencesWakayama Univ.Japan

Personalised recommendations