Securing open multi-agent systems governed by electronic institutions

One way to build large-scale autonomous systems is to develop an open multi-agent system using peer-to-peer architectures in which agents are not pre-engineered to work together and in which agents themselves determine the social norms that govern collective behaviour. The social norms and the agent interaction models can be described by Electronic Institutions such as those expressed in the Lightweight Coordination Calculus (LCC), a compact executable specification language based on logic programming and pi-calculus. Open multi-agent systems have experienced growing popularity in the multi-agent community and are expected to have many applications in the near future as large scale distributed systems become more widespread, e.g. in emergency response, electronic commerce and cloud computing. A major practical limitation to such systems is security, because the very openness of such systems opens the doors to adversaries for exploit existing vulnerabilities. This thesis addresses the security of open multi-agent systems governed by electronic institutions. First, the main forms of attack on open multi-agent systems are introduced and classified in the proposed attack taxonomy. Then, various security techniques from the literature are surveyed and analysed. These techniques are categorised as either prevention or detection approaches. Appropriate countermeasures to each class of attack are also suggested. A fundamental limitation of conventional security mechanisms (e.g. access control and encryption) is the inability to prevent information from being propagated. Focusing on information leakage in choreography systems using LCC, we then suggest two frameworks to detect insecure information flows: conceptual modeling of interaction models and language-based information flow analysis. A novel security-typed LCC language is proposed to address the latter approach. Both static (design-time) and dynamic (run-time) security type checking are employed to guarantee no information leakage can occur in annotated LCC interaction models. The proposed security type system is then formally evaluated by proving its properties. A limitation of both conceptual modeling and language-based frameworks is difficulty of formalising realistic policies using annotations. Finally, the proposed security-typed LCC is applied to a cloud computing configuration case study, in which virtual machine migration is managed. The secrecy of LCC interaction models for virtual machine management is analysed and information leaks are discussed

Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process

[EN] Due to the increase in collaborative work and the decentralization of processes in many domains, there is an expanding demand for large-scale, flexible and adaptive software systems to support the interactions of people and institutions distributed in heterogeneous environments. Commonly, these software applications should follow specific regulations meaning the actors using them are bound by rights, duties and restrictions. Since this normative environment determines the final design of the software system, it should be considered as an important issue during the design of the system. Some agent-oriented software engineering methodologies deal with the development of normative systems (systems that have a normative environment) by integrating the analysis of the normative environment of a system in the development process. This paper analyses to what extent these methodologies support the analysis and formalisation of the normative environment and highlights some open issues of the topic.This work is partially supported by the PROMETEOII/2013/019, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, FP7-29493, TIN2011-27652-C03-00, CSD2007-00022 projects, and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Program under the grant agreement No 294931.Garcia Marques, ME.; Miles, S.; Luck, M.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2014). Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9275-zS120Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Molesini, A., & Seidita, V. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook on agent-oriented design processes (Vol. VIII, 569 p. 508 illus.). Berlin: Springer.Akbari, O. (2010). A survey of agent-oriented software engineering paradigm: Towards its industrial acceptance. Journal of Computer Engineering Research, 1, 14–28.Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V., & Rebollo, M. (2011). An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: The THOMAS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems, 29(2), 379–403.Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). GORMAS: An organizational-oriented methodological guideline for open MAS. In Proceedings of AOSE’09 (pp. 440–449).Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). Organizational-oriented methodological guidelines for designing virtual organizations. In Distributed computing, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, soft computing, and ambient assisted living. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5518, pp. 154–162).Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative systems in computer science—Ten guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In G. Boella, P. Noriega, G. Pigozzi, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems, number 09121 in Dagstuhl seminar proceedings.Boella, G., Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79.Bogdanovych, A., Esteva, M., Simoff, S., Sierra, C., & Berger, H. (2008). A methodology for developing multiagent systems as 3d electronic institutions. In M. Luck & L. Padgham (Eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII (Vol. 4951, pp. 103–117). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J., & Vazquez-Salceda, J. (2006). Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in multi-agent systems. LNCS (LNAI) (Vol. 3913).Bordini, R. H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2006). Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (Vol. 12, pp. 239–256). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Botti, V., Garrido, A., Giret, A., & Noriega, P. (2011). The role of MAS as a decision support tool in a water-rights market. In Post-proceedings workshops AAMAS2011 (Vol. 7068, pp. 35–49). Berlin: Springer.Breaux, T. (2009). Exercising due diligence in legal requirements acquisition: A tool-supported, frame-based approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 225–230).Breaux, T. D., & Baumer, D. L. (2011). Legally reasonable security requirements: A 10-year ftc retrospective. Computers and Security, 30(4), 178–193.Breaux, T. D., Vail, M. W., & Anton, A. I. (2006). Towards regulatory compliance: Extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE ’06 (pp. 46–55). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 203–236.Cardoso, H. L., & Oliveira, E. (2008). A contract model for electronic institutions. In COIN’07: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III (pp. 27–40).Castor, A., Pinto, R. C., Silva, C. T. L. L., & Castro, J. (2004). Towards requirement traceability in tropos. In WER (pp. 189–200).Chopra, A., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. ICST conference on digital business.Cliffe, O., Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2006). Specifying and analysing agent-based social institutions using answer set programming. In O. Boissier, J. Padget, V. Dignum, G. Lindemann, E. Matson, S. Ossowski, J. Sichman, & J. Vázquez-Salceda (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3913, pp. 99–113). Springer. Berlin.Criado, N., Argente, E., Garrido, A., Gimeno, J. A., Igual, F., Botti, V., Noriega, P., & Giret, A. (2011). Norm enforceability in Electronic Institutions? In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI (Vol. 6541, pp. 250–267). Springer.Dellarocas, C., & Klein, M. (2001). Contractual agent societies. In R. Conte & C. Dellarocas (Eds.), Social order in multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 113–133)., Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations New York: Springer.DeLoach, S. A. (2008). Developing a multiagent conference management system using the o-mase process framework. In Proceedings of the international conference on agent-oriented software engineering VIII (pp. 168–181).DeLoach, S. A., & Garcia-Ojeda, J. C. (2010). O-mase; a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244–280.DeLoach, S. A., Padgham, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., & Thangarajah, J. (2009). Using three aose toolkits to develop a sample design. International Journal Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 3, 416–476.Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., & Winikoff, M. (2007). Open agent systems? Eighth international workshop on agent oriented software engineering (AOSE) in AAMAS07.Dignum, V. (2003). A model for organizational interaction:based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. Formal approaches to agent-based systems (Vol. 2699).Dignum, V., Vazquez-Salceda, J., & Dignum, F. (2005). Omni: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In R. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, & A. Seghrouchni (Eds.)Programming multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3346, pp. 181–198). Berlin: Springer.d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Sierra, C. (2012). Communicating open systems, 186, 38–94.Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Agent-based modelling. In Modelling norms (pp. 65–84). Dordrecht: Springer.Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodriguez, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2004). AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In AAMAS04 (pp. 236–243).Fenech, S., Pace, G. J., & Schneider, G. (2009). Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In Proceedings of the 6th international colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing, ICTAC ’09 (pp. 200–214).Garbay, C., Badeig, F., & Caelen, J. (2012). Normative multi-agent approach to support collaborative work in distributed tangible environments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion, CSCW ’12 (pp. 83–86). New York, NY: ACM.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated open multi-agent systems based on contracts. In Information Systems Development (pp. 243–255).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., & Delaney, B. (2012). An analysis of agent-oriented engineering of e-health systems. In 13th international eorkshop on sgent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-AAMAS).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., and Delaney, B. (2013). Analysing the Suitability of Multiagent Methodologies for e-Health Systems. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering XIII, volume 7852, pages 134–150. Springer-Verlag.Garrido, A., Giret, A., Botti, V., & Noriega, P. (2013). mWater, a case study for modeling virtual markets. In New perspectives on agreement technologies (Vol. Law, Gover, pp. 563–579). Springer.Gteau, B., Boissier, O., & Khadraoui, D. (2006). Multi-agent-based support for electronic contracting in virtual enterprises. IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 150(3), 73–91.Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The current state of normative agent-based systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2), 6.Hsieh, F.-S. (2005). Automated negotiation based on contract net and petri net. In E-commerce and web technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3590, pp. 148–157).Kollingbaum, M., Jureta, I. J., Vasconcelos, W., & Sycara, K. (2008). Automated requirements-driven definition of norms for the regulation of behavior in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AISB 2008 workshop on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., April 2008.Li, T., Balke, T., Vos, M., Satoh, K., & Padget, J. (2013). Detecting conflicts in legal systems. In Y. Motomura, A. Butler, & D. Bekki (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 7856, pp. 174–189)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., & Solanki, M. (2010) Towards verifying contract regulated service composition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 1–29).Lopez, F., Luck, M., & d’Inverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 227–250.Lpez, F. y, Luck, M., & dInverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 227–250.Mader, P., & Egyed, A. (2012). Assessing the effect of requirements traceability for software maintenance. In 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (pp. 171–180), Sept 2012.Mao, X., & Yu, E. (2005). Organizational and social concepts in agent oriented software engineering. In AOSE IV. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3382, pp. 184–202).Meyer, J.-J. C., & Wieringa, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Okouya, D., & Dignum, V. (2008). Operetta: A prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations (demo paper). In AAMAS (pp. 1667–1678).Malone, T. W., Smith J. B., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. COIN (pp. 156–171).Osman, N., Robertson, D., & Walton, C. (2006). Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems. In AAMAS ’06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 238–240). New York, NY: ACM.Pace, G., Prisacariu, C., & Schneider, G. (2007). Model checking contracts a case study. In Automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4762, pp. 82–97).Rotolo, A., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Rules, agents and norms: Guidelines for rule-based normative multi-agent systems. RuleML Europe, 6826, 52–66.Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the elicitation of requirements compliant with regulations. In CAiSE ’08 (pp. 228–242).Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., & Susi, A. (2009). Designing law-compliant software requirements. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, ER ’09 (pp. 472–486).Singh, M. P. Commitments in multiagent systems: Some history, some confusions, some controversies, some prospects.Solaiman, E., Molina-Jimenez, C., & Shrivastav, S. (2003). Model checking correctness properties of electronic contracts. In Service-oriented computing—ICSOC 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2910, pp. 303–318). Berlin: Springer.Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications. Enhancing tropos with commitments (pp. 417–435).Vázquez-Salceda, J., Confalonieri, R., Gomez, I., Storms, P., Nick Kuijpers, S. P., & Alvarez, S. (2009). Modelling contractually-bounded interactions in the car insurance domain. DIGIBIZ 2009.Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Symbolic model checking of institutions. In ICEC (pp. 35–44).Walton, C. D. (2007). Verifiable agent dialogues. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(2):197–213, Logic-Based Agent Verification.Winkler, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2010). A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), 9(4), 529–565.Wooldridge, M., Fisher, M., Huget, M., & Parsons, S. (2002). Model checking multi-agent systems with mable. In AAMAS02 (pp. 952–959). ACM

Designing normative open virtual enterprises

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Enterprise Information Systems on 23/03/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17517575.2015.1036927.[EN] There is an increasing interest on developing virtual enterprises in order to deal with the globalisation of the economy, the rapid growth of information technologies and the increase of competitiveness. In this paper we deal with the development of normative open virtual enterprises (NOVEs). They are systems with a global objective that are composed of a set of heterogeneous entities and enterprises that exchange services following a specific normative context. In order to analyse and design systems of this kind the multi-agent paradigm seems suitable because it offers a specific solution for supporting the social and contractual relationships between enterprises and for formalising their business processes. This paper presents how the Regulated Open Multiagent systems (ROMAS) methodology, an agent-oriented software methodology, can be used to analyse and design NOVEs. ROMAS offers a complete development process that allows identifying and formalising of the structure of NOVEs, their normative context and the interactions among their members. The use of ROMAS is exemplified by means of a case study that represents an automotive supply chain.This work was partially supported by the projects [PROMETEOII/2013/019], [TIN2012-36586-C03-01], [FP7-29493], [TIN2011-27652-C03-00] and [CSD2007-00022], and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Programme [grant agreement number 294931].Garcia Marques, ME.; Giret Boggino, AS.; Botti Navarro, VJ. (2016). Designing normative open virtual enterprises. Enterprise Information Systems. 10(3):303-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2015.1036927S303324103Cardoso, H. L., Urbano, J., Brandão, P., Rocha, A. P., & Oliveira, E. (2012). ANTE: Agreement Negotiation in Normative and Trust-Enabled Environments. Advances on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 261-264. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28786-2_33Chu, X. N., Tso, S. K., Zhang, W. J., & Li, Q. (2002). Partnership Synthesis for Virtual Enterprises. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 19(5), 384-391. doi:10.1007/s001700200028Davidsson, P., & Jacobsson, A. (s. f.). Towards Norm-Governed Behavior in Virtual Enterprises. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 35-55. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88071-4_3DeLoach, S. A., & Ojeda, J. C. G. (2010). O-MaSE: a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244. doi:10.1504/ijaose.2010.036984DI MARZO SERUGENDO, G., GLEIZES, M.-P., & KARAGEORGOS, A. (2005). Self-organization in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(2), 165-189. doi:10.1017/s0269888905000494Dignum, V. 2003. “A Model for Organizational Interaction: Based on Agents, Founded in Logic.” PhD diss., Utrecht University.Dignum, V., and F. Dignum. 2006.A Landscape of Agent Systems for the Real World. Technical Report 44-CS-2006-061. Utrecht: Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J. C., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal Specification of Interaction in Agent Societies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 37-52. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45133-4_4Garcia, E. 2013. “Engineering Regulated Open Multiagent Systems.” PhD diss., Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (s. f.). Software Engineering for Service-Oriented MAS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 86-100. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85834-8_9Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2013). A Model-Driven CASE tool for developing and verifying regulated open MAS. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 695-704. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.009Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Evaluating software engineering techniques for developing complex systems with multiagent approaches. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 494-506. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.012Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated Open Multi-Agent Systems Based on Contracts. Information Systems Development, 243-255. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_20Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2014). ROMAS Methodology. Handbook on Agent-Oriented Design Processes, 331-369. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39975-6_11Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The Current State of Normative Agent-Based Systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2). doi:10.18564/jasss.1750HORLING, B., & LESSER, V. (2004). A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19(4), 281-316. doi:10.1017/s0269888905000317Julian, V., Rebollo, M., Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., & Giret, A. (2009). Using THOMAS for Service Oriented Open MAS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 56-70. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10739-9_5Luck, M., Barakat, L., Keppens, J., Mahmoud, S., Miles, S., Oren, N., … Taweel, A. (2011). Flexible Behaviour Regulation in Agent Based Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 99-113. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22427-0_8Meneguzzi, F., Modgil, S., Oren, N., Miles, S., Luck, M., & Faci, N. (2012). Applying electronic contracting to the aerospace aftercare domain. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(7), 1471-1487. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2012.06.004Presley, A., Sarkis, J., Barnett, W., & Liles, D. (2001). International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 13(2), 145-162. doi:10.1023/a:1011131417956Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the Elicitation of Requirements Compliant with Regulations. Active Flow and Combustion Control 2018, 228-242. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_18Such, J. M., García-Fornes, A., Espinosa, A., & Bellver, J. (2013). Magentix2: A privacy-enhancing Agent Platform. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(1), 96-109. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2012.06.009Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Enhancing Tropos with Commitments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 417-435. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_22Wooldridgey, M., & Ciancarini, P. (2001). Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: The State of the Art. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1-28. doi:10.1007/3-540-44564-1_

Challenges for adaptation in agent societies

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOIAdaptation in multiagent systems societies provides a paradigm for allowing these societies to change dynamically in order to satisfy the current requirements of the system. This support is especially required for the next generation of systems that focus on open, dynamic, and adaptive applications. In this paper, we analyze the current state of the art regarding approaches that tackle the adaptation issue in these agent societies. We survey the most relevant works up to now in order to highlight the most remarkable features according to what they support and how this support is provided. In order to compare these approaches, we also identify different characteristics of the adaptation process that are grouped in different phases. Finally, we discuss some of the most important considerations about the analyzed approaches, and we provide some interesting guidelines as open issues that should be required in future developments.This work has been partially supported by CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 under grant CSD2007-00022, the European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT, and projects TIN2009-13839-C03-01 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01.Alberola Oltra, JM.; Julian Inglada, VJ.; García-Fornes, A. (2014). Challenges for adaptation in agent societies. Knowledge and Information Systems. 38(1):1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0565-yS134381Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning; foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59Abdallah S, Lesser V (2007) Multiagent reinforcement learning and self-organization in a network of agents. In: Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pp 172–179Abdu H, Lutfiyya H, Bauer MA (1999) A model for adaptive monitoring configurations. In: Proceedings of the VI IFIP/IEEE IM conference on network management, pp 371–384Alberola JM, Julian V, Garcia-Fornes A (2011) A cost-based transition approach for multiagent systems reorganization. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on aut. agents and MAS (AAMAS11), pp 1221–1222Alberola JM, Julian V, Garcia-Fornes A (2012) Multi-dimensional transition deliberation for organization adaptation in multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on aut. agents and MAS (AAMAS12) (in press)Argente E, Julian V, Botti V (2006) Multi-agent system development based on organizations. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 160(3):55–71Argente E, Botti V, Carrascosa C, Giret A, Julian V, Rebollo M (2011) An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: the Thomas approach. Knowl Inf Syst 29(2):379–403Ashford SJ, Taylor MS (1990) Adaptation to work transitions. An integrative approach. Res Pers Hum Resour Manag 8:1–39Ashford SJ, Blatt R, Walle DV (2003) Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback-seeking behavior in organizations. J Manag 29(6):773–799Astley WG, Van de Ven AH (1983) Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Adm Sci Q 28(2):245–273Bond AH, Gasser L (1988) A survey of distributed artificial intelligence readings in distributed artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los AltosBou E, López-Sánchez M, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2006) Adaptation of autonomic electronic institutions through norms and institutional agents In: Engineering societies in the agents world. Number LNAI 445, Springer, Dublin, pp 300–319Bou E, López-Sánchez M, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2007) Towards self-configuration in autonomic electronic institutions. In: COIN 2006 workshops. Number LNAI 4386, pp 220–235Bou E, López-Sánchez M, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA (2008) Using case-based reasoning in autonomic electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III, pp 125–138Brett JM, Feldman DC, Weingart LR (1990) Feedback-seeking behavior of new hires and job changers. J Manag 16:737–749Bulka B, Gaston ME, desJardins M (2007) Local strategy learning in networked multi-agent team formation. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 15(1):29–45Campos J, López-Sánchez M, Esteva M (2009) Assistance layer, a step forward in multi-agent systems. In: Coordination support international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 1301–1302Campos J, Esteva M, López-Sánchez M, Morales J, Salamó M (2011) Organisational adaptation of multi-agent systems in a peer-to-peer scenario. Computing 91(2):169–215Carley KM, and Gasser L (1999) Computational organization theory. Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 299–330Carvalho G, Almeida H, Gatti M, Vinicius G, Paes R, Perkusich, A, Lucena C (2006) Dynamic law evolution in governance mechanisms for open multi-agent systems. In: Second workshop on software engineering for agent-oriented systemsCernuzzi L, Zambonelli F (2011) Adaptive organizational changes in agent-oriented methodologies. Knowl Eng Rev 26(2):175–190Cheng BH, Lemos R, Giese H, Inverardi P, Magee J (2009) Software engineering for self-adaptive systems: a research roadmap, pp 1–26Corkill DD, Lesser VR (1983) The use of meta-level control for coordination in a distributed problem solving networks. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on artificial intelligence. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp 748–756Corkill DD, Lander SE (1998) Diversity in agent organizations. Object Mag 8(4):41–47de Paz JF, Bajo J, González A, Rodríguez S, Corchado JM (2012) Combining case-based reasoning systems and support vector regression to evaluate the atmosphere-ocean interaction. Knowl Inf Syst 30(1):155–177DeLoach SA, Matson E (2004) An organizational model for designing adaptive multiagent systems. In: The AAAI-04 workshop on agent organizations: theory and practice (AOTP), pp 66–73DeLoach SA, Oyeman W, Matson E (2008) A capabilities-based model for adaptive organizations. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 16:13–56Dignum V, Dignum F (2001) Modelling agent societies: co-ordination frameworks and institutions progress in artificial intelligence. LNAI 2258, pp 191–204Dignum V (2004) A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. PhD dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht. SIKS dissertation series 2004-1Dignum V, Dignum F, Sonenberg L (2004) Towards dynamic reorganization of agent societies. In: Proceedings of the workshop on coordination in emergent agent societies, pp 22–27Dignum V, Dignum F (2006) Exploring congruence between organizational structure and task performance: a simulation approach coordination, organization, institutions and norms in agent systems I. In: Proceedings of the ANIREM ’05/OOOP ’05, pp 213–230Dignum V, Dignum F (2007) A logic for agent organizations. In: Proceedings of the multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations federated workshops (MALLOW ’007), formal approaches to multi-agent systems (FAMAS ’007) workshopFox MS (1981) Formalizing virtual organizations. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybern 11(1):70–80Gaston ME, desJardins M (2005) Agent-organized networks for dynamic team formation. In: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 230–237Gaston ME, desJardins M (2008) The effect of network structure on dynamic team formation in multi-agent systems. Comput Intell 24(2):122–157Norbert G, Philippe M (1997) The reorganization of societies of autonomous agents. In: MAAMAW-97. Springer, London, pp 98–111Goldman CV, Rosenschein JS (1997) Evolving organizations of agents American association for artificial intelligence. In: Multiagent learning workshop at AAAI97Greve HR (1998) Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Adm Sci Quart 43(1):58–86Guessoum Z, Ziane M, Faci N (2004) Monitoring and organizational-level adaptation of multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the AAMAS ’04, pp 514–521Hoogendoorn M, Treur J (2006) An adaptive multi-agent organization model based on dynamic role allocation. In: Proceedings of the IAT ’06, pp 474–481Horling B, Benyo B, Lesser V (1999) Using self-diagnosis to adapt organizational structures. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents, pp 529–536Horling B, Lesser V (2005) A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. Knowl Eng Rev 19(4): 281–316Hrebiniak LG, Joyce WF (1985) Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism. Adm Sci Quart 30(3):336–349Hübner JF, Sichman JS, Boissier O (2002) MOISE+: towards a structural, functional, and deontic model for MAS organization. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 501–502Hübner JF, Sichman JS, Boissier O (2004) Using the MOISE+ for a cooperative framework of MAS reorganisation. In: Proceedings of the 17th Brazilian symposium on artificial intelligence (SBIA ’04), vol 3171, pp 506–515Hübner JF, Boissier O, Sichman JS (2005) Specifying E-alliance contract dynamics through the MOISE + reorganisation process Anais do V Encontro Nacional de Inteligde Inteligncia Artificial (ENIA 2005)Jennings NR (2001) An agent-based approach for building complex software systems. Commun ACM 44(4):35–41Kamboj S, Decker KS (2006) Organizational self-design in semi-dynamic environments In: 2007 IJCAI workshop on agent organizations: models and simulations (AOMS@IJCAI), pp 335–337Katz D, Kahn RL (1966) The social psychology of organizations. Wiley, New YorkKelly D, Amburgey TL (1991) Organizational inertia and momentum: a dynamic model of strategic change. Acad Manag J 34(3):591–612Kephart J, Chess DM (2003) The vision of autonomic computing. Computer 36(1):41–50Kim DH (1993) The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Manag Rev 35(1):37–50Kota R, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2009a) Decentralised structural adaptation in agent organisations organized adaptation in multi-agent systems, pp 54–71Kota R, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2009b) Self-organising agent organisations. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2009)Kota R, Gibbins N, Jennings NR (2012) Decentralised approaches for self-adaptation in agent organisations. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 7(1):1–28Kotter J, Schlesinger L (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harv Bus Rev 106–1145Lesser VR (1998) Reflections on the nature of multi-agent coordination and its implications for an agent architecture. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 89–111Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 14:319–340Luck M, McBurney P, Shehory O, Willmott S (2005) Agent technology: computing as interaction (a roadmap for agent based computing)Mathieu P, Routier JC, Secq Y (2002a) Dynamic organization of multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, pp 451–452Mathieu P, Routier JC, Secq Y (2002b) Principles for dynamic multi-agent organizations. In: Proceedings of the 5th Pacific rim international workshop on multi agents: intelligent agents and multi-agent systems, pp 109–122Matson E, DeLoach S (2003) Using dynamic capability evaluation to organize a team of cooperative, autonomous robots. In: Proceedings of the 2003 international conference on artificial intelligence (IC-AI ’03), Las Vegas, pp 23–26Matson E, DeLoach S (2004) Enabling intra-robotic capabilities adaptation using an organization-based multiagent system. ICRA, pp 2135–2140Matson E, DeLoach S (2005) Formal transition in agent organizations. In: IEEE international conference on knowledge intensive multiagent systems (KIMAS ’05)Matson E, Bhatnagar R (2006) Properties of capability based agent organization transition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology IAT ’06, pp 59–65Morales J, López-Sánchez M, Esteva, M (2011) Using experience to generate new regulations. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-11), pp 307–312Muhlestein D, Lim S (2011) Online learning with social computing based interest sharing. Knowl Inf Syst 26(1):31–58Nair R, Tambe M, Marsella S (2003) Role allocation and reallocation in multiagent teams: towards a practical analysis. In: Proceedings of the second AAMAS ’03, pp 552–559Orlikowski WJ (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Inf Syst Res 7(1):63–92Panait L, Luke S (2005) Cooperative multi-agent learning: the state of the art. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 11:387–434Ringold PL, Alegria J, Czaplewski RL, Mulder BS, Tolle T, Burnett K (1996) Adaptive monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6(3):745–747Routier J, Mathieu P, Secq Y (2001) Dynamic skill learning: a support to agent evolution. In: Proceedings of the artificial intelligence and the simulation of behaviour symposium on adaptive agents and multi-agent systems (AISB ’01), pp 25–32Scott RW (2002) Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems, 5th edn. Prentice Hall International, New YorkSeelam A (2009) Reorganization of massive multiagent systems: MOTL/O http://books.google.es/books?id=R-s8cgAACAAJ . Southern Illinois University CarbondaleSo Y, Durfee EH (1993) An organizational self-design model for organizational change. In: AAAI93 workshop on AI and theories of groups and oranizations, pp 8–15So Y, Durfee EH (1998) Designing organizations for computational agents. Simulating organizations. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 47–64Schwaninger M (2000) A theory for optimal organization. Technical report. Institute of Management at the University of St. Gallen, SwitzerlandTantipathananandh C, Berger-Wolf TY (2011) Finding communities in dynamic social networks. In: IEEE 11th international conference on data mining 2011, pp 1236–1241Wang Z, Liang X (2006) A graph based simulation of reorganization in multi-agent systems. In: IEEE WICACM international conference on intelligent agent technology, pp 129–132Wang D, Tse Q, Zhou Y (2011) A decentralized search engine for dynamic web communities. Knowl Inf Syst 26(1):105–125Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organizing, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, ReadingWeyns D, Haesevoets R, Helleboogh A, Holvoet T, Joosen W (2010a) The MACODO middleware for context-driven dynamic agent organizations. ACM Transact Auton Adapt Syst 3:1–3:28Weyns D, Malek S, Andersson J (2010b) FORMS: a formal reference model for self-adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomic computing, pp 205–214Weyns D, Georgeff M (2010) Self-adaptation using multiagent systems. IEEE Softw 27(1):86–91Zhong C (2006) An investigation of reorganization algorithms. Master-thesi

An Ontological-based Knowledge-Representation Formalism for Case-Based Argumentation

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9524-3[EN] In open multi-agent systems, agents can enter or leave the system, interact, form societies, and have dependency relations with each other. In these systems, when agents have to collaborate or coordinate their activities to achieve their objectives, their different interests and preferences can come into conflict. Argumentation is a powerful technique to harmonise these conflicts. However, in many situations the social context of agents determines the way in which agents can argue to reach agreements. In this paper, we advance research in the computational representation of argumentation frameworks by proposing a new ontologicalbased, knowledge-representation formalism for the design of open MAS in which the participating software agents are able to manage and exchange arguments with each other taking into account the agents’ social context. This formalism is the core of a case-based argumentation framework for agent societies. In addition, we present an example of the performance of the formalism in a real domain that manages the requests received by the technicians of a call centre.This work is supported by the Spanish government grants [CONSOLIDER-INGENIO 2010 CSD2007-00022, TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and TIN2012-36586-C03-01] and by the GVA project [PROMETEO II/2013/019].Heras Barberá, SM.; Botti, V.; Julian Inglada, VJ. (2014). An Ontological-based Knowledge-Representation Formalism for Case-Based Argumentation. Information Systems Frontiers. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-014-9524-3S120Amgoud, L. (2005). An argumentation-based model for reasoning about coalition structures. In 2nd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, argmas-05(pp. 1–12). Springer.Amgoud, L., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2007). A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In 6th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-07. IFAAMAS.Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2008). Abstract argumentation scheme frameworks. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence: methodology, systems and applications, AIMSA-08, lecture notes in artificial intelligence (Vol. 5253, pp. 220–234). Springer.Aulinas, M., Tolchinsky, P., Turon, C., Poch, M., Cortés, U. (2012). Argumentation-based framework for industrial wastewater discharges management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(2), 317–325.Bench-Capon, T., & Atkinson, K. (2009). Argumentation in artificial intelligence, chap. abstract argumentation and values (pp. 45–64). Springer.Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97–143.Bulling, N., Dix, J., Chesñevar, C.I. (2008). Modelling coalitions: ATL + argumentation. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-08 (Vol. 2, pp. 681–688). ACM Press.Chesñevar, C., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.Diaz-Agudo, B., & Gonzalez-Calero, P.A. (2007). Ontologies: A handbook of principles, concepts and applications in information systems, integrated series in information systems, chap. an ontological approach to develop knowledge intensive cbr systems (Vol. 14, pp. 173–214). Springer.Dung, P.M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and N -person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O., Michel, F. (2004). From agents to organizations: An organizational view of multi-agent systems. In Agent-oriented software engineering VI, LNCS (Vol. 2935, pp. 214–230.) Springer-Verlag.Hadidi, N., Dimopolous, Y., Moraitis, P. (2010). Argumentative alternating offers. In 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, AAMAS-10 (pp. 441–448). IFAAMAS.Heras, S., Atkinson, K., Botti, V., Grasso, F., Julián, V., McBurney, P. (2010). How argumentation can enhance dialogues in social networks. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10, frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications (Vol. 216, pp. 267–274). IOS Press.Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2011). On a computational argumentation framework for agent societies. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems (pp. 123–140). Springer.Heras, S., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2012). Argument-based agreements in agent societies. Neurocomputing, 75(1), 156–162.Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V. (2013). Argue to agree: A case-based argumentation approach. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 54(1), 82–108.Jordán, J., Heras, S., Julián, V. (2011). A customer support application using argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 14th international conference on information fusion (FUSION-11) (pp. 772– 778).Karunatillake, N.C. (2006). Argumentation-based negotiation in a social context. Ph.D. thesis, School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK.Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., Rahwan, I., McBurney, P. (2009). Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence, 173(9-10), 935–981.Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence, 104, 1–69.López de Mántaras, R., McSherry, D., Bridge, D., Leake, D., Smyth, B., Craw, S., Faltings, B., Maher, M.L., Cox, M., Forbus, K., Keane, M., Watson, I. (2006). Retrieval, reuse, revision, and retention in CBR. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(3), 215–240.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: Agent and agreement technologies. In IEEE international conference on distributed human-machine systems. IEEE Press.Oliva, E., McBurney, P., Omicini, A. (2008). Co-argumentation artifact for agent societies. In 5th international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, Argmas-08 (pp. 31–46). Springer.Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2007). Learning and joint deliberation through argumentation in multi-agent systems. In 7th international conference on agents and multi-agent systems, AAMAS-07. ACM Press.Ontañón, S., & Plaza, E. (2009). Argumentation-based information exchange in prediction markets. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems, LNAI (vol. 5384, pp. 181–196). Springer.Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3), 261–292.Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument and Computation, 1, 93–124.Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D. (2005). Dialogues about the burden of proof. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL-05 (pp. 115–124). ACM Press.Sierra, C., Botti, V., Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz 10.1007/s13218-010-0070-y .Soh, L.K., & Tsatsoulis, C. (2005). A real-time negotiation model and a multi-agent sensor network implementation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 11(3), 215–271.Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press.Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2008). PISA - pooling information from several agents: Multiplayer argumentation from experience. In Proceedings of the 28th SGAI international conference on artificial intelligence, AI-2008 (pp. 133–146). Springer.Wardeh, M., Bench-Capon, T., Coenen, F.P. (2009). PADUA: A protocol for argumentation dialogue using association rules. AI and Law, 17(3), 183–215.Wardeh, M., Coenen, F., Bench-Capon, T. (2010). Arguing in groups. In 3rd international conference on computational models of argument, COMMA-10 (pp. 475–486). IOS Press.Willmott, S., Vreeswijk, G., Chesñevar, C., South, M., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format for multi-agent systems. In 3rd international workshop on argumentation in multi-agent systems, ArgMAS-06 (pp. 17–34). Springer.Wyner, A., & Schneider, J. (2012). Arguing from a point of view. In Proceedings of the first international conference on agreement technologies

OperA/ALIVE/OperettA

Comprehensive models for organizations must, on the one hand, be able to specify global goals and requirements but, on the other hand, cannot assume that particular actors will always act according to the needs and expectations of the system design. Concepts as organizational rules (Zambonelli 2002), norms and institutions (Dignum and Dignum 2001; Esteva et al. 2002), and social structures (Parunak and Odell 2002) arise from the idea that the effective engineering of organizations needs high-level, actor-independent concepts and abstractions that explicitly define the organization in which agents live (Zambonelli 2002).Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Towards adaptive multi-robot systems: self-organization and self-adaptation

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.The development of complex systems ensembles that operate in uncertain environments is a major challenge. The reason for this is that system designers are not able to fully specify the system during specification and development and before it is being deployed. Natural swarm systems enjoy similar characteristics, yet, being self-adaptive and being able to self-organize, these systems show beneficial emergent behaviour. Similar concepts can be extremely helpful for artificial systems, especially when it comes to multi-robot scenarios, which require such solution in order to be applicable to highly uncertain real world application. In this article, we present a comprehensive overview over state-of-the-art solutions in emergent systems, self-organization, self-adaptation, and robotics. We discuss these approaches in the light of a framework for multi-robot systems and identify similarities, differences missing links and open gaps that have to be addressed in order to make this framework possible

Modularity and Openness in Modeling Multi-Agent Systems

We revisit the formalism of modular interpreted systems (MIS) which encourages modular and open modeling of synchronous multi-agent systems. The original formulation of MIS did not live entirely up to its promise. In this paper, we propose how to improve modularity and openness of MIS by changing the structure of interference functions. These relatively small changes allow for surprisingly high flexibility when modeling actual multi-agent systems. We demonstrate this on two well-known examples, namely the trains, tunnel and controller, and the dining cryptographers. Perhaps more importantly, we propose how the notions of multi-agency and openness, crucial for multi-agent systems, can be precisely defined based on their MIS representations.Comment: In Proceedings GandALF 2013, arXiv:1307.416