Commitment Protocol Generation

Günay, Akın; Winikoff, Michael; Yolum, Pınar

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-37890-4_8

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their formulation of goals includes also a precondition (or context) that must be true before a goal G can become Active and some intention can be adopted to achieve it, and a post-condition (or effect) that becomes true if G is successfully achieved. Pre-and post-conditions of goals do not have a direct bearing on our semantics and we need not treat them; see also Günay, Winikoff, and Yolum (2012). We also do not follow Thangarajah, Harland, Morley, and Yorke-Smith (2011)'s inclusion of an in-condition that is true once a goal is Active until its achievement.…”

Section: Goalsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The authors propose an algorithm that considers the goals and capabilities of the agent making the commitment, as well as the agent to whom it proposes the commitment, in order to make it more likely that the creditor agent will accept the protocol. Günay et al (2012) require commitments to be explicitly accepted or rejected. Otherwise, their commitment and goal life cycles are similar to those we proposed previously and here, in line with prior work.…”

Section: Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Coupled Operational Semantics for Goals and Commitments

Telang

Singh²,

Yorke-Smith³

2019

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commitments capture how an agent relates to another agent, whereas goals describe states of the world that an agent is motivated to bring about. Commitments are elements of the social state of a set of agents whereas goals are elements of the private states of individual agents. It makes intuitive sense that goals and commitments are understood as being complementary to each other. More importantly, an agent's goals and commitments ought to be coherent, in the sense that an agent's goals would lead it to adopt or modify relevant commitments and an agent's commitments would lead it to adopt or modify relevant goals. However, despite the intuitive naturalness of the above connections, they have not been adequately studied in a formal framework. This article provides a combined operational semantics for goals and commitments by relating their respective life cycles as a basis for how these concepts (1) cohere for an individual agent and (2) engender cooperation among agents. Our semantics yields important desirable properties of convergence of the configurations of cooperating agents, thereby delineating some theoretically well-founded yet practical modes of cooperation in a multiagent system.

show abstract

Section: Goalsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Coupled Operational Semantics for Goals and Commitments

Telang

Singh²,

Yorke-Smith³

2019

jair

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Threats, Limitations, and Future Directions. One limitation of Positron is that it does not handle varieties of accountability besides commitments [29] and does not show how to evaluate agent goals and decision making with respect to protocols [15]. Importantly, we have not established that practitioners employing Positron can obtain the benefits in abstraction, reusability, and correctness the motivate it.…”

Section: Discussion: Literature and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Günay et al [15] treat protocols as sets of commitments and propose automatically generating such sets from an agent's beliefs, goals, and capabilities. In contrast, we offer a semiautomatic approach where a tool helps designers compose existing protocols.…”

Section: Discussion: Literature and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positron: Composing Commitment-Based Protocols

Gerard

Telang

Kalia

et al. 2015

Service-Oriented Computing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We understand a sociotechnical system (STS) as a microsociety in which social entities interact about and via technical entities. A protocol specifies an STS by describing how its members collaborate by giving meaning to their interactions. We restrict ourselves to protocols that specify messages between roles in terms of how they create and affect commitments among the roles.A key idea of our approach, Positron, is that a protocol specifies the accountability of one role to another in addition to the requirements from each role. Specifically, Positron incorporates role accountability and role requirements as two integral aspects of protocol composition. In this way, it seeks to promote collaboration in STSs through natural requirements elicitation; flexibility enactment; and compliance and validation (ascribing accountability for each requirement to a specific role). Positron maps composite protocols to the representations of a well-known model checker as a way to verify protocols to assist in their correct formulation. We evaluate Positron by demonstrating it on real-life protocols.

show abstract

“…Besides, we plan to support other normative concepts such as obligations and prohibitions, which are relevant to commitments (Boella & van der Torre, 2004;Craven & Sergot, 2008;Ågotnes, van der Hoek, & Wooldridge, 2010;Criado, Argente, & Botti, 2011). Last but not least integration of ProMoca with the recent work on dynamic protocol creation in open systems is an interesting future work (Yolum & Singh, 2007;Artikis, 2009;Meneguzzi, Telang, & Singh, 2013;Günay, Winikoff, & Yolum, 2013Cranefield, Savarimuthu, Meneguzzi, & Oren, 2015). This research aims to automate creation of protocols at run-time, which requires agents to agree on a commitment protocol to regulate their interaction according to their own requirements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ProMoca: Probabilistic Modeling and Analysis of Agents in Commitment Protocols

Günay¹,

Liu²,

Zhang³

2016

jair

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social commitment protocols regulate interactions of agents in multiagent systems. Several methods have been developed to analyze properties of commitment protocols. However, analysis of an agent's behavior in a commitment protocol, which should take into account the agent's goals and beliefs, has received less attention. In this paper we present ProMoca framework to address this issue. Firstly, we develop an expressive formal language to model agents with respect to their commitments. Our language provides dedicated elements to define commitment protocols, and model agents in terms of their goals, behaviors, and beliefs. Furthermore, our language provides probabilistic and non-deterministic elements to model uncertainty in agents' beliefs. Secondly, we identify two essential properties of an agent with respect to a commitment protocol, namely compliance and goal satisfaction. We formalize these properties using a probabilistic variant of linear temporal logic. Thirdly, we adapt a probabilistic model checking algorithm to automatically analyze compliance and goal satisfaction properties. Finally, we present empirical results about efficiency and scalability of ProMoca.

show abstract

Commitment Protocol Generation

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

A Coupled Operational Semantics for Goals and Commitments

A Coupled Operational Semantics for Goals and Commitments

Positron: Composing Commitment-Based Protocols

ProMoca: Probabilistic Modeling and Analysis of Agents in Commitment Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About