Annotation and matching of first-class agent interaction protocols

ABSTRACT

Many practitioners view agent interaction protocols as rigid specifications that are defined a priori, and hard-code their agents with a set of protocols known at design time --- an unnecessary restriction for intelligent and adaptive agents. To achieve the full potential of multi-agent systems, we believe that it is important that multi-agent interaction protocols are treated as first-class computational entities in systems. That is, they exist at runtime in systems as entities that can be referenced, inspected, composed, invoked and shared, rather than as abstractions that emerge from the behaviour of the participants. Using first-class protocols, a goal-directed agent can assess a library of protocols at runtime to determine which protocols best achieve a particular goal. In this paper, we present three methods for annotating protocols with their outcomes, and matching protocols using these annotations so that an agent can quickly and correctly find the protocols in its library that achieve a given goal. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods.

REFERENCES

• 1: R. L. Brak, J. D. Fleuriot, and J. McGinnis. Theorem proving for protocol languages. In Proc. of the European Union Multiagent Systems Workshop, 2004.
• 2: Frank S. De Boer , Maurizio Gabbrielli , Elena Marchiori , Catuscia Palamidessi, Proving concurrent constraint programs correct, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), v.19 n.5, p.685-725, Sept. 1997 [doi>10.1145/265943.265954]
• 3: M. P. Georgeff and A. L. Lansky. Reactive reasoning and planning. In Proc. of the 6th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 677--682, 1987.
• 4: L. Giordano, A. Martelli, and C. Schwind. Specialization of interaction protocols in a temporal action logic. Electronic Notes on Theoetical Computer Science, 157(4):3--22, 2006.
• 5: S. Hanks , D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection, Artificial Intelligence, v.33 n.3, p.379-412, Nov. 1987 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(87)90043-9]
• 6: David Harel , Jerzy Tiuryn , Dexter Kozen, Dynamic Logic, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000
• 7: C. A. R. Hoare, Communicating sequential processes, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1985
• 8: J. McGinnis and T. Miller. Amongst first-class protocols. In Engineering Societies in the Agents World VIII, LNAI, 2007. (To Appear).
• 9: T. Miller and P. McBurney. Annotating and matching first-class agent interaction protocols. TR ULCS-07-019, University of Liverpool, Dept of Computer Science, 2007.
• 10: T. Miller and P. McBurney. Executable logic for reasoning and annotation of first-class agent interaction protocols. TR ULCS-07-015, University of Liverpool, Dept of Computer Science, 2007.
• 11: T. Miller and P. McBurney. Using constraints and process algebra for specification of first-class agent interaction protocols. In ESAW VII, volume 4457 of LNAI, pages 245--264, 2007.
• 12: H. Prendinger and G. Schurz. Reasoning about action and change: A dynamic logic approach. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 5(2):209--245, 1996.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence

General Terms:
Design

Keywords:
agent interaction, annotation, communication protocols, first-class protocols, matching, multi-agent interaction, multi-agent systems