KEMNAD: A Knowledge Engineering Methodology for Negotiating Agent Development

Automated negotiation is widely applied in various domains. However, the development of such systems is a complex knowledge and software engineering task. So, a methodology there will be helpful. Unfortunately, none of existing methodologies can offer sufficient, detailed support for such system development. To remove this limitation, this paper develops a new methodology made up of: (1) a generic framework (architectural pattern) for the main task, and (2) a library of modular and reusable design pattern (templates) of subtasks. Thus, it is much easier to build a negotiating agent by assembling these standardised components rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Moreover, since these patterns are identified from a wide variety of existing negotiating agents(especially high impact ones), they can also improve the quality of the final systems developed. In addition, our methodology reveals what types of domain knowledge need to be input into the negotiating agents. This in turn provides a basis for developing techniques to acquire the domain knowledge from human users. This is important because negotiation agents act faithfully on the behalf of their human users and thus the relevant domain knowledge must be acquired from the human users. Finally, our methodology is validated with one high impact system

Applying tropos to socio-technical system design and runtime configuration

Recent trends in Software Engineering have introduced the importance of reconsidering the traditional idea of software design as a socio-tecnical problem, where human agents are integral part of the system along with hardware and software components. Design and runtime support for Socio-Technical Systems (STSs) requires appropriate modeling techniques and non-traditional infrastructures. Agent-oriented software methodologies are natural solutions to the development of STSs, both humans and technical components are conceptualized and analyzed as part of the same system. In this paper, we illustrate a number of Tropos features that we believe fundamental to support the development and runtime reconfiguration of STSs. Particularly, we focus on two critical design issues: risk analysis and location variability. We show how they are integrated and used into a planning-based approach to support the designer in evaluating and choosing the best design alternative. Finally, we present a generic framework to develop self-reconfigurable STSs

Contingent task and motion planning under uncertainty for human–robot interactions

Manipulation planning under incomplete information is a highly challenging task for mobile manipulators. Uncertainty can be resolved by robot perception modules or using human knowledge in the execution process. Human operators can also collaborate with robots for the execution of some difficult actions or as helpers in sharing the task knowledge. In this scope, a contingent-based task and motion planning is proposed taking into account robot uncertainty and human–robot interactions, resulting a tree-shaped set of geometrically feasible plans. Different sorts of geometric reasoning processes are embedded inside the planner to cope with task constraints like detecting occluding objects when a robot needs to grasp an object. The proposal has been evaluated with different challenging scenarios in simulation and a real environment.Postprint (published version

Lessons Learned from Development of a Software Tool to Support Academic Advising

We detail some lessons learned while designing and testing a decision-theoretic advising support tool for undergraduates at a large state university. Between 2009 and 2011 we conducted two surveys of over 500 students in multiple majors and colleges. These surveys asked students detailed questions about their preferences concerning course selection, advising, and career paths. We present data from this study which may be helpful for faculty and staff who advise undergraduate students. We find that advising support software tools can augment the student-advisor relationship, particularly in terms of course planning, but cannot and should not replace in-person advising.Comment: 5 Figures, revised version including more figures and cross-referencin