Deterministic Negotiations: Concurrency for Free

  • Javier Esparza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8704)


We give an overview of recent results and work in progress on deterministic negotiations, a concurrency model with atomic multi-party negotiations as primitive actions.


Concurrent System Negotiation Game Tuple Space Primitive Action Trust Negotiation 
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.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P.: The application of Petri nets to workflow management. J. Circuits, Syst. and Comput. 08(01), 21–66 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abramsky, S., Gavoille, C., Kirchner, C., Meyer auf der Heide, F., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.): ICALP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6199. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Etessami, K., Yannakakis, M.: Realizability and verification of msc graphs. In: Orejas, F., Spirakis, P.G., van Leeuwen, J. (eds.) ICALP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2076, pp. 797–808. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atdelzater, T.F., Atkins, E.M., Shin, K.G.: Qos negotiation in real-time systems and its application to automated flight control. IEEE Transactions on Computers 49(11), 1170–1183 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Basu, S., Bultan, T., Ouederni, M.: Deciding choreography realizability. In: POPL, pp. 191–202. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brázdil, T., Jancar, P., Kucera, A.: Reachability games on extended vector addition systems with states. In: Abramsky, et al. (eds.) [2], pp. 478–489Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, R., Smith, R.G.: Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artificial Intelligence 20(1), 63–109 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Diekert, V., Rozenberg, G., Rozenburg, G.: The book of traces, vol. 15. World Scientific (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esparza, J., Desel, J.: Realizability of deterministic negotiations (in preparation)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esparza, J., Desel, J.: On negotiation as concurrency primitive. In: D’Argenio, P.R., Melgratti, H. (eds.) CONCUR 2013 – Concurrency Theory. LNCS, vol. 8052, pp. 440–454. Springer, Heidelberg (2013), Extended version in CoRR abs/1307.2145Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esparza, J., Desel, J.: On negotiation as concurrency primitive II: Deterministic cyclic negotiations. In: Muscholl, A. (ed.) FOSSACS 2014 (ETAPS). LNCS, vol. 8412, pp. 258–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2014), Extended version in CoRR abs/1403.4958Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esparza, J., Hoffmann, P.: Negotiation games. CoRR, abs/1405.6820 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genest, B., Gimbert, H., Muscholl, A., Walukiewicz, I.: Optimal Zielonka-type construction of deterministic asynchronous automata. In: Abramsky, et al. (eds.) [2], pp. 52–63Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Genest, B., Muscholl, A., Peled, D.: Message sequence charts. In: Desel, J., Reisig, W., Rozenberg, G. (eds.) Lectures on Concurrency and Petri Nets. LNCS, vol. 3098, pp. 537–558. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Janssen, W., Poel, M., Zwiers, J.: Action systems and action refinement in the development of parallel systems - an algebraic approach. In: Groote, J.F., Baeten, J.C.M. (eds.) CONCUR 1991. LNCS, vol. 527, pp. 298–316. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J., Sierra, C.: Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kučera, A.: Playing games with counter automata. In: Finkel, A., Leroux, J., Potapov, I. (eds.) RP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7550, pp. 29–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mohalik, S., Walukiewicz, I.: Distributed games. In: Pandya, P.K., Radhakrishnan, J. (eds.) FSTTCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2914, pp. 338–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salaün, G., Bultan, T., Roohi, N.: Realizability of choreographies using process algebra encodings. IEEE T. Services Computing 5(3), 290–304 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walukiewicz, I.: Pushdown processes: Games and model-checking. Inf. Comput. 164(2), 234–263 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Winsborough, W.H., Seamons, K.E., Jones, V.E.: Automated trust negotiation. In: Proceedings of DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, DISCEX 2000, vol. 1, pp. 88–102. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zwiers, J.: Compositionality, Concurrency, and Partial Correctness. LNCS, vol. 321. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Esparza
    • 1
  1. 1.Fakultät für InformatikTechnische Universität MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations