TACOP: A Cognitive Agent for a Naval Training Simulation Environment

The full version of this paper appeared in: Doesburg, W. A. van, Heuvelink, A., and Broek, E. L. van den (2005). TACOP: A cognitive agent for a naval training simulation environment. In M. Pechoucek, D. Steiner, and S. Thompson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Industry Track of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-05), p.34-41. July 25-29, Utrecht, The Netherlands

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

A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7Multi-agent planning (MAP) approaches are typically oriented at solving loosely coupled problems, being ineffective to deal with more complex, strongly related problems. In most cases, agents work under complete information, building complete knowledge bases. The present article introduces a general-purpose MAP framework designed to tackle problems of any coupling levels under incomplete information. Agents in our MAP model are partially unaware of the information managed by the rest of agents and share only the critical information that affects other agents, thus maintaining a distributed vision of the task. Agents solve MAP tasks through the adoption of an iterative refinement planning procedure that uses single-agent planning technology. In particular, agents will devise refinements through the partial-order planning paradigm, a flexible framework to build refinement plans leaving unsolved details that will be gradually completed by means of new refinements. Our proposal is supported with the implementation of a fully operative MAP system and we show various experiments when running our system over different types of MAP problems, from the most strongly related to the most loosely coupled.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and the Valencian Prometeo project 2008/051.Torreño Lerma, A.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Sapena Vercher, O. (2014). A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information. Knowledge and Information Systems. 38:141-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7S14117838Argente 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):379–403Barrett A, Weld DS (1994) Partial-order planning: evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artif Intell 67(1):71–112Belesiotis A, Rovatsos M, Rahwan I (2010) Agreeing on plans through iterated disputes. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp 765–772Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2001) JADE: a FIPA2000 compliant agent development environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (AAMAS). ACM, pp 216–217Blum A, Furst ML (1997) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif Intell 90(1–2):281–300Boutilier C, Brafman R (2001) Partial-order planning with concurrent interacting actions. J Artif Intell Res 14(105):136Brafman R, Domshlak C (2008) From one to many: planning for loosely coupled multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 28–35Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. J Auton Agents Multiag Syst 19(3):297–331Coles A, Coles A, Fox M, Long D (2010) Forward-chaining partial-order planning. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 42–49Coles A, Fox M, Long D, Smith A (2008) Teaching forward-chaining planning with JavaFF. In: Colloquium on AI education, 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceCox J, Durfee E, Bartold T (2005) A distributed framework for solving the multiagent plan coordination problem. In: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 821–827de Weerdt M, Clement B (2009) Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiag Grid Syst 5(4):345–355Decker K, Lesser VR (1992) Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. Int J Coop Inf Syst 2(2):319–346desJardins M, Durfee E, Ortiz C, Wolverton M (1999) A survey of research in distributed continual planning. AI Mag 20(4):13–22Doshi P (2007) On the role of interactive epistemology in multiagent planning. In: Artificial intelligence and, pattern recognition. pp 208–213Dréo J, Savéant P, Schoenauer M, Vidal V (2011) Divide-and-evolve: the marriage of descartes and darwin. In: Proceedings of the 7th international planning competition (IPC). Freiburg, GermanyDurfee EH (2001) Distributed problem solving and planning. In: Multi-agents systems and applications: selected tutorial papers from the 9th ECCAI advanced course (ACAI) and agentLink’s third European agent systems summer school (EASSS), vol LNAI 2086. Springer, pp 118–149Durfee EH, Lesser V (1991) Partial global planning: a coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Special Issue Distrib Sens Netw 21(5):1167–1183Ephrati E, Rosenschein JS (1996) Deriving consensus in multiagent systems. Artif Intell 87(1–2):21–74Fikes R, Nilsson N (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208Fogués R, Alberola J, Such J, Espinosa A, Garcia-Fornes A (2010) Towards dynamic agent interaction support in open multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on artificial intelligence research and development: proceedings of the 13th international conference of the Catalan association for artificial intelligence’. IOS Press, pp 89–98Gerevini A, Long D (2006) Preferences and soft constraints in PDDL3. In: ICAPS workshop on planning with preferences and soft constraints, vol 6. Citeseer, pp 46–53Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL-the Planning Domain Definition Language. In: AIPS-98 planning committeeGmytrasiewicz P, Doshi P (2005) A framework for sequential planning in multi-agent settings. J Artif Intell Res 24:49–79Haslum P, Jonsson P (1999) Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on, planning (ECP). pp 308–318Helmert M (2006) The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res 26(1):191–246Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast planning generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302Jonsson A, Rovatsos M (2011) Scaling up multiagent planning: a best-response approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 114–121Kambhampati S (1997) Refinement planning as a unifying framework for plan synthesis. AI Mag 18(2):67–97Kaminka GA, Pynadath DV, Tambe M (2002) Monitoring teams by overhearing: a multi-agent plan-recognition approach. J Artif Intell Res 17:83–135Kone M, Shimazu A, Nakajima T (2000) The state of the art in agent communication languages. Knowl Inf Syst 2(3):259–284Kovacs DL (2011) Complete BNF description of PDDL3.1. Technical reportKraus S (1997) Beliefs, time and incomplete information in multiple encounter negotiations among autonomous agents. Ann Math Artif Intell 20(1–4):111–159Kumar A, Zilberstein S, Toussaint M (2011) Scalable multiagent planning using probabilistic inference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)’. Barcelona, Spain, pp 2140–2146Kvarnström J. (2011) Planning for loosely coupled agents using partial order forward-chaining. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 138–145Lesser V, Decker K, Wagner T, Carver N, Garvey A, Horling B, Neiman D, Podorozhny R, Prasad M, Raja A et al (2004) Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 9(1):87–143Lipovetzky N, Geffner H (2011) Searching for plans with carefully designed probes. In: Proceedings of the 21th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS)Micacchi C, Cohen R (2008) A framework for simulating real-time multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 17(2):135–166Nguyen N, Katarzyniak R (2009) Actions and social interactions in multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2):133–136Nguyen X, Kambhampati S (2001) Reviving partial order planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 459–464Nissim R, Brafman R, Domshlak C (2010) A general, fully distributed multi-agent planning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). pp 1323–1330Pajares S, Onaindia E (2012) Defeasible argumentation for multi-agent planning in ambient intelligence applications. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) pp 509–516Paolucci M, Shehory O, Sycara K, Kalp D, Pannu A (2000) A planning component for RETSINA agents. Intelligent Agents VI. Agent Theories Architectures, and Languages pp 147–161Parsons S, Sierra C, Jennings N (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 8(3):261Penberthy J, Weld D (1992) UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 103–114Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39(1):127–177Sycara K, Pannu A (1998) The RETSINA multiagent system (video session): towards integrating planning, execution and information gathering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on autonomous agents (Agents). ACM, pp 350–351Tambe M (1997) Towards flexible teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124Tang Y, Norman T, Parsons S (2010) A model for integrating dialogue and the execution of joint plans. Argumentation in multi-agent systems, pp 60–78Tonino H, Bos A, de Weerdt M, Witteveen C (2002) Plan coordination by revision in collective agent based systems. Artif Intell 142(2):121–145Van Der Krogt R, De Weerdt M (2005), Plan repair as an extension of planning. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 161–170Weld D (1994) An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Mag 15(4):27Weld D (1999) Recent advances in AI planning. AI Mag 20(2):93–123Wilkins D, Myers K (1998) A multiagent planning architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence planning systems (AIPS), pp 154–162Wu F, Zilberstein S, Chen X (2011) Online planning for multi-agent systems with bounded communication. Artif Intell 175(2):487–511Younes H, Simmons R (2003) VHPOP: versatile heuristic partial order planner. J Artif Intell Res 20: 405–430Zhang J, Nguyen X, Kowalczyk R (2007) Graph-based multi-agent replanning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS

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

Managing healthcare workflows in a multi-agent system environment

Whilst Multi-Agent System (MAS) architectures appear to offer a more flexible model for designers and developers of complex, collaborative information systems, implementing real-world business processes that can be delegated to autonomous agents is still a relatively difficult task. Although a range of agent tools and toolkits exist, there still remains the need to move the creation of models nearer to code generation, in order that the development path be more rigorous and repeatable. In particular, it is essential that complex organisational process workflows are captured and expressed in a way that MAS can successfully interpret. Using a complex social care system as an exemplar, we describe a technique whereby a business process is captured, expressed, verified and specified in a suitable format for a healthcare MAS.</p

A principled information valuation for communications during multi-agent coordination

Decentralised coordination in multi-agent systems is typically achieved using communication. However, in many cases, communication is expensive to utilise because there is limited bandwidth, it may be dangerous to communicate, or communication may simply be unavailable at times. In this context, we argue for a rational approach to communication --- if it has a cost, the agents should be able to calculate a value of communicating. By doing this, the agents can balance the need to communicate with the cost of doing so. In this research, we present a novel model of rational communication that uses information theory to value communications, and employ this valuation in a decision theoretic coordination mechanism. A preliminary empirical evaluation of the benefits of this approach is presented in the context of the RoboCupRescue simulator