Nonmonotonic Commitment Machines

Protocols for multiagent interaction need to be flexible because of the open and dynamic nature of multiagent systems. Such protocols cannot be modeled adequately via finite state machines (FSMs) as FSM representations lead to rigid protocols. We propose a commitment-based formalism called Nonmonotonic Commitment Machines (NCMs) for representing multiagent interaction protocols. In this approach, we give semantics to states and actions in a protocol in terms of commitments. Protocols represented as NCMs afford the agent flexibility in interactions with other agents. In particular, situations in protocols when nonmonotonic reasoning is required can be efficiently represented in NCMs.

[1]  Timothy W. Finin,et al.  KQML as an agent communication language , 1994, CIKM '94.

[2]  Frank Guerin,et al.  Denotational semantics for agent communication language , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[3]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Shared Cooperative Activity , 1991 .

[4]  Christen Krogh,et al.  Obligations in Multiagent Systems , 1995, SCAI.

[5]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[6]  J. McCarthy.  Situations, Actions, and Causal Laws , 1963 .

[7]  Yoav Shoham,et al.  Agent-Oriented Programming , 1992, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Commitment Machines , 2001, ATAL.

[9]  Munindar P. Singh,et al.  Readings in agents , 1997 .

[10]  Jean-Luc Koning,et al.  A Semi-Formal Specification Language Dedicated to Interaction Protocols , 2000, EJC.

[11]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Dynamic logic , 2001, SIGA.

[12]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems , 1993, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[13]  Gerard J. Holzmann,et al.  Design and validation of computer protocols , 1991 .

[14]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Modelling Social Agents: Towards Deliberate Communication , 2002 .

[15]  Munindar P. Singh.  An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: , 1999, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[16]  Munindar P. Singh.  A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[17]  J. McCarthy.  ELABORATION TOLERANCE , 1997 .

[18]  Enrico Giunchiglia,et al.  Nonmonotonic causal theories , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Reid G. Smith,et al.  The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver , 1980, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[20]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Issues in Automated Negotiation and Electronic Commerce: Extending the Contract Net Framework , 1997, ICMAS.

[21]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[22]  Munindar P. Singh.  Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles , 2003, Communication in Multiagent Systems.

[23]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Stockholm 1999 , 1999 .

[24]  Munindar P. Singh.  An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: , 1999, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[25]  Benjamin Cox,et al.  NetBill Security and Transaction Protocol , 1995, USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce.

[26]  David Harel,et al.  Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems , 1987, Sci. Comput. Program..

[27]  Vladimir Lifschitz,et al.  Missionaries and Cannibals in the Causal Calculator , 2000, KR.

[28]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations , 1995, ICMAS.