Agent Bodies: An Interface Between Agent and Environment

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23850-0_2Interfacing the agents with their environment is a classical problem when designing multiagent systems. However, the models pertaining to this interface generally choose to either embed it in the agents, or in the environment. In this position paper, we propose to highlight the role of agent bodies as primary components of the multiagent system design. We propose a tentative definition of an agent body, and discuss its responsibilities in terms of MAS components. The agent body takes from both agent and environment: low-level agent mechanisms such as perception and influences are treated locally in the agent bodies. These mechanism participate in the cognitive process, but are not driven by symbol manipulation. Furthermore, it allows to define several bodies for one mind, either to simulate different capabilities, or to interact in the different environments - physical, social- the agent is immersed in. We also draw the main challenges to apply this concept effectively.Saunier, J.; Carrascosa Casamayor, C.; Galland, S.; Kanmeugne, PS. (2015). Agent Bodies: An Interface Between Agent and Environment. En Agent Environments for Multi-Agent Systems IV. 4th International Workshop, E4MAS 2014 - 10 Years Later, Paris, France, May 6, 2014. 25-40. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-23850-0_2S2540Barella, A., Ricci, A., Boissier, O., Carrascosa, C.: MAM5: Multi-agent model for intelligent virtual environments. In: 10th European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems (EUMAS 2012), pp. 16–30 (2012)Behe, F., Galland, S., Gaud, N., Nicolle, C., Koukam, A.: An ontology-based metamodel for multiagent-based simulations. Int. J. Simul. Model. Pract. Theor. 40, 64–85 (2014). http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1569190X13001342Brooks, R.A.: Intelligence without representation. Artif. Intell. 47(1), 139–159 (1991)Campos, J., López-Sánchez, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Esteva, M.: Formalising situatedness and adaptation in electronic institutions. In: Hübner, J.F., Matson, E., Boissier, O., Dignum, V. (eds.) COIN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5428, pp. 126–139. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Galland, S., Balbo, F., Gaud, N., Rodriguez, S., Picard, G., Boissier, O.: Contextualize agent interactions by combining social and physical dimensions in the environment. In: Demazeau, Y., Decker, K. (eds.) 13th International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (PAAMS), June 2015Galland, S., Balbo, F., Gaud, N., Rodriguez, S., Picard, G., Boissier, O.: A multidimensional environment implementation for enhancing agent interaction. In: Bordini, R., Elkind, E. (eds.) Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2015), Istanbul, Turkey, May 2015Galland, S., Gaud, N., Demange, J., Koukam, A.: Environment model for multiagent-based simulation of 3D urban systems. In: the 7th European Workshop on Multiagent Systems (EUMAS 2009), Ayia Napa, Cyprus, December 2009 (paper 36)Gechter, F., Contet, J.M., Lamotte, O., Galland, S., Koukam, A.: Virtual intelligent vehicle urban simulator: application to vehicle platoon evaluation. Simul. Model. Practice Theor. (SIMPAT) 24, 103–114 (2012)Gibson, J.J.: The Theory of Affordances. Hilldale, USA (1977)Gouaïch, A., Michel, F., Guiraud, Y.: MIC $$^{*}$$ : a deployment environment for autonomous agents. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3374, pp. 109–126. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Gouaïch, A., Michel, F.: Towards a unified view of the environment (s) within multi-agent systems. Informatica (Slovenia) 29(4), 423–432 (2005)Helleboogh, A., Vizzari, G., Uhrmacher, A., Michel, F.: Modeling dynamic environments in multiagent simulation. Int. J. Auton. Agents Multiagent Syst. 14(1), 87–116 (2007)Ketenci, U.G., Bremond, R., Auberlet, J.M., Grislin, E.: Drivers with limited perception: models and applications to traffic simulation. Recherche transports sécurité, RTS (2013)Michel, F.: The IRM4S model: the influence/reaction principle for multiagent based simulation. ACM, May 2007Okuyama, F.Y., Bordini, R.H., da Rocha Costa, A.C.: ELMS: an environment description language for multi-agent simulation. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3374, pp. 67–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Platon, E., Sabouret, N., Honiden, S.: Environmental support for tag interactions. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4389, pp. 106–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Ribeiro, T., Vala, M., Paiva, A.: Censys: a model for distributed embodied cognition. In: Aylett, R., Krenn, B., Pelachaud, C., Shimodaira, H. (eds.) IVA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8108, pp. 58–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Omicini, A.: Programming MAS with artifacts. In: Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3862, pp. 206–221. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Ricci, A., Omicini, A., Viroli, M., Gardelli, L., Oliva, E.: Cognitive stigmergy: towards a framework based on agents and artifacts. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4389, pp. 124–140. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Ricci, A., Piunti, M., Viroli, M.: Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 23(2), 158–192 (2011)Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Omicini, A.: Environment-based coordination through coordination artifacts. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3374, pp. 190–214. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Omicini, A.: $${\sf CArtA gO}$$ : a framework for prototyping artifact-based environments in MAS. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4389, pp. 67–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Rincon, J.A., Garcia, E., Julian, V., Carrascosa, C.: Developing adaptive agents situated in intelligent virtual environments. In: Polycarpou, M., de Carvalho, A.C.P.L.F., Pan, J.-S., Woźniak, M., Quintian, H., Corchado, E. (eds.) HAIS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8480, pp. 98–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Saunier, J., Balbo, F., Pinson, S.: A formal model of communication and context awareness in multiagent systems. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 23(2), 219–247 (2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10849-014-9198-8Saunier, J., Jones, H.: Mixed agent/social dynamics for emotion computation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, pp. 645–652. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2014)Simonin, O., Ferber, J.: Modeling self satisfaction and altruism to handle action selection and reactive cooperation. In: 6th International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB 2000 volume 2), pp. 314–323 (2000)Thalmann, D., Musse, S.R.: Crowd Simulation. Springer, London (2007)Thiebaux, M., Marsella, S., Marshall, A., Kallmann, M.: Smartbody: Behavior realization for embodied conversational agents. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol. 1, pp. 151–158 (2008)Viroli, M., Holvoet, T., Ricci, A., Schelfthout, K., Zambonelli, F.: Infrastructures for the environment of multiagent system. Int. J. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 14(1), 49–60 (2007)Weyns, D., Boucké, N., Holvoet, T.: Gradient field-based task assignment in an agv transportation system. In: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 842–849. ACM (2006)Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J.: Environment as a first-class abstraction in multi-agent systems. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst 14(1), 5–30 (2007). special Issue on Environments for Multi-agent SystemsWeyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F., Holvoet, T., Ferber, J.: Environments for multiagent systems state-of-the-art and research challenges. In: Weyns, D., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Michel, F. (eds.) E4MAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3374, pp. 1–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Weyns, D., Steegmans, E., Holvoet, T.: Towards active perception in situated multi-agent systems. Special Issue J. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18(9–10), 867–883 (2004)Yim, M., Shen, W.M., Salemi, B., Rus, D., Moll, M., Lipson, H., Klavins, E., Chirikjian, G.S.: Modular self-reconfigurable robot systems [grand challenges of robotics]. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 14(1), 43–52 (2007

On environment difficulty and discriminating power

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1This paper presents a way to estimate the difficulty and discriminating power of any task instance. We focus on a very general setting for tasks: interactive (possibly multiagent) environments where an agent acts upon observations and rewards. Instead of analysing the complexity of the environment, the state space or the actions that are performed by the agent, we analyse the performance of a population of agent policies against the task, leading to a distribution that is examined in terms of policy complexity. This distribution is then sliced by the algorithmic complexity of the policy and analysed through several diagrams and indicators. The notion of environment response curve is also introduced, by inverting the performance results into an ability scale. We apply all these concepts, diagrams and indicators to two illustrative problems: a class of agent-populated elementary cellular automata, showing how the difficulty and discriminating power may vary for several environments, and a multiagent system, where agents can become predators or preys, and may need to coordinate. Finally, we discuss how these tools can be applied to characterise (interactive) tasks and (multi-agent) environments. These characterisations can then be used to get more insight about agent performance and to facilitate the development of adaptive tests for the evaluation of agent abilities.I thank the reviewers for their comments, especially those aiming at a clearer connection with the field of multi-agent systems and the suggestion of better approximations for the calculation of the response curves. The implementation of the elementary cellular automata used in the environments is based on the library 'CellularAutomaton' by John Hughes for R [58]. I am grateful to Fernando Soler-Toscano for letting me know about their work [65] on the complexity of 2D objects generated by elementary cellular automata. I would also like to thank David L. Dowe for his comments on a previous version of this paper. This work was supported by the MEC/MINECO projects CONSOLIDER-INGENIO CSD2007-00022 and TIN 2010-21062-C02-02, GVA project PROMETEO/2008/051, the COST - European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research IC0801 AT, and the REFRAME project, granted by the European Coordinated Research on Long-term Challenges in Information and Communication Sciences & Technologies ERA-Net (CHIST-ERA), and funded by the Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad in Spain (PCIN-2013-037).José Hernández-Orallo (2015). On environment difficulty and discriminating power. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 29(3):402-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9257-1S402454293Anderson, J., Baltes, J., & Cheng, C. T. (2011). Robotics competitions as benchmarks for ai research. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(01), 11–17.Andre, D., & Russell, S. J. (2002). State abstraction for programmable reinforcement learning agents. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 119–125). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.Antunes, L., Fortnow, L., van Melkebeek, D., & Vinodchandran, N. V. (2006). Computational depth: Concept and applications. Theoretical Computer Science, 354(3), 391–404. Foundations of Computation Theory (FCT 2003), 14th Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory 2003.Arai, K., Kaminka, G. A., Frank, I., & Tanaka-Ishii, K. (2003). Performance competitions as research infrastructure: Large scale comparative studies of multi-agent teams. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 7(1–2), 121–144.Ashcraft, M. H., Donley, R. D., Halas, M. A., & Vakali, M. (1992). Chapter 8 working memory, automaticity, and problem difficulty. In Jamie I.D. Campbell (Ed.), The nature and origins of mathematical skills, volume 91 of advances in psychology (pp. 301–329). North-Holland.Ay, N., Müller, M., & Szkola, A. (2010). Effective complexity and its relation to logical depth. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 56(9), 4593–4607.Barch, D. M., Braver, T. S., Nystrom, L. E., Forman, S. D., Noll, D. C., & Cohen, J. D. (1997). Dissociating working memory from task difficulty in human prefrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia, 35(10), 1373–1380.Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Programming multi-agent systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. London: Wiley. com.Boutilier, C., Reiter, R., Soutchanski, M., Thrun, S. et al. (2000). Decision-theoretic, high-level agent programming in the situation calculus. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 355–362). Menlo Park, CA; Cambridge, MA; London; AAAI Press; MIT Press; 1999.Busoniu, L., Babuska, R., & De Schutter, B. (2008). A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, 38(2), 156–172.Chaitin, G. J. (1977). Algorithmic information theory. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 21, 350–359.Chedid, F. B. (2010). Sophistication and logical depth revisited. In 2010 IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) (pp. 1–4). IEEE.Cheeseman, P., Kanefsky, B. & Taylor, W. M. (1991). Where the really hard problems are. In Proceedings of IJCAI-1991 (pp. 331–337).Dastani, M. (2008). 2APL: A practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 16(3), 214–248.Delahaye, J. P. & Zenil, H. (2011). Numerical evaluation of algorithmic complexity for short strings: A glance into the innermost structure of randomness. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 219(1), 63–77Dowe, D. L. (2008). Foreword re C. S. Wallace. Computer Journal, 51(5), 523–560. Christopher Stewart WALLACE (1933–2004) memorial special issue.Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). IQ tests are not for machines, yet. Intelligence, 40(2), 77–81.Du, D. Z., & Ko, K. I. (2011). Theory of computational complexity (Vol. 58). London: Wiley-Interscience.Elo, A. E. (1978). The rating of chessplayers, past and present (Vol. 3). London: Batsford.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Fatès, N. & Chevrier, V. (2010). How important are updating schemes in multi-agent systems? an illustration on a multi-turmite model. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1-Volume 1 (pp. 533–540). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Ferber, J. & Müller, J. P. (1996). Influences and reaction: A model of situated multiagent systems. In Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-96) (pp. 72–79).Ferrando, P. J. (2009). Difficulty, discrimination, and information indices in the linear factor analysis model for continuous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 33(1), 9–24.Ferrando, P. J. (2012). Assessing the discriminating power of item and test scores in the linear factor-analysis model. Psicológica, 33, 111–139.Gent, I. P., & Walsh, T. (1994). Easy problems are sometimes hard. Artificial Intelligence, 70(1), 335–345.Gershenson, C. & Fernandez, N. (2012). Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity, 18(2), 29–44.Gruner, S. (2010). Mobile agent systems and cellular automata. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 20(2), 198–233.Hardman, D. K., & Payne, S. J. (1995). Problem difficulty and response format in syllogistic reasoning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(4), 945–975.He, J., Reeves, C., Witt, C., & Yao, X. (2007). A note on problem difficulty measures in black-box optimization: Classification, realizations and predictability. Evolutionary Computation, 15(4), 435–443.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000). Beyond the turing test. Journal of Logic Language & Information, 9(4), 447–466.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000). On the computational measurement of intelligence factors. In A. Meystel (Ed.), Performance metrics for intelligent systems workshop (pp. 1–8). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2000). Thesis: Computational measures of information gain and reinforcement in inference processes. AI Communications, 13(1), 49–50.Hernández-Orallo, J. (2010). A (hopefully) non-biased universal environment class for measuring intelligence of biological and artificial systems. In M. Hutter et al. (Ed.), 3rd International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (pp. 182–183). Atlantis Press Extended report at http://users.dsic.upv.es/proy/anynt/unbiased.pdf .Hernández-Orallo, J., & Dowe, D. L. (2010). Measuring universal intelligence: Towards an anytime intelligence test. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1508–1539.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., España-Cubillo, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Insa-Cabrera, J. (2011). On more realistic environment distributions for defining, evaluating and developing intelligence. In J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), LNAI series on artificial general intelligence 2011 (Vol. 6830, pp. 82–91). Berlin: Springer.Hernández-Orallo, J., Dowe, D. L., & Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2014). Universal psychometrics: Measuring cognitive abilities in the machine kingdom. Cognitive Systems Research, 27, 50–74.Hernández-Orallo, J., Insa, J., Dowe, D. L. & Hibbard, B. (2012). Turing tests with turing machines. In A. Voronkov (Ed.), The Alan Turing Centenary Conference, Turing-100, Manchester, 2012, volume 10 of EPiC Series (pp. 140–156).Hernández-Orallo, J. & Minaya-Collado, N. (1998). A formal definition of intelligence based on an intensional variant of Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of International Symposium of Engineering of Intelligent Systems (EIS’98) (pp. 146–163). ICSC Press.Hibbard, B. (2009). Bias and no free lunch in formal measures of intelligence. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence, 1(1), 54–61.Hoos, H. H. (1999). Sat-encodings, search space structure, and local search performance. In 1999 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 16, pp. 296–303).Insa-Cabrera, J., Benacloch-Ayuso, J. L., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2012). On measuring social intelligence: Experiments on competition and cooperation. In J. Bach, B. Goertzel, & M. Iklé (Eds.), AGI, volume 7716 of lecture notes in computer science (pp. 126–135). Berlin: Springer.Insa-Cabrera, J., Dowe, D. L., España-Cubillo, S., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., & Hernández-Orallo, J. (2011). Comparing humans and AI agents. In J. Schmidhuber, K. R. Thórisson, & M. Looks (Eds.), LNAI series on artificial general intelligence 2011 (Vol. 6830, pp. 122–132). Berlin: Springer.Knuth, D. E. (1973). Sorting and searching, volume 3 of the art of computer programming. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Kotovsky, K., & Simon, H. A. (1990). What makes some problems really hard: Explorations in the problem space of difficulty. Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 143–183.Legg, S. (2008). Machine super intelligence. PhD thesis, Department of Informatics, University of Lugano, June 2008.Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). Universal intelligence: A definition of machine intelligence. Minds and Machines, 17(4), 391–444.Leonetti, M. & Iocchi, L. (2010). Improving the performance of complex agent plans through reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (Vol. 1, pp. 723–730). International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Levin, L. A. (1973). Universal sequential search problems. Problems of Information Transmission, 9(3), 265–266.Levin, L. A. (1986). Average case complete problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15, 285.Li, M., & Vitányi, P. (2008). An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.Low, C. K., Chen, T. Y., & Rónnquist, R. (1999). Automated test case generation for bdi agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 2(4), 311–332.Madden, M. G., & Howley, T. (2004). Transfer of experience between reinforcement learning environments with progressive difficulty. Artificial Intelligence Review, 21(3), 375–398.Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 300.Michel, F. (2004). Formalisme, outils et éléments méthodologiques pour la modélisation et la simulation multi-agents. PhD thesis, Université des sciences et techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier.Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.Orponen, P., Ko, K. I., Schöning, U., & Watanabe, O. (1994). Instance complexity. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 41(1), 96–121.Simon, H. A., & Kotovsky, K. (1963). Human acquisition of concepts for sequential patterns. Psychological Review, 70(6), 534.Team, R., et al. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Whiteson, S., Tanner, B., & White, A. (2010). The reinforcement learning competitions. The AI Magazine, 31(2), 81–94.Wiering, M., & van Otterlo, M. (Eds.). (2012). Reinforcement learning: State-of-the-art. Berlin: Springer.Wolfram, S. (2002). A new kind of science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media.Zatuchna, Z., & Bagnall, A. (2009). Learning mazes with aliasing states: An LCS algorithm with associative perception. Adaptive Behavior, 17(1), 28–57.Zenil, H. (2010). Compression-based investigation of the dynamical properties of cellular automata and other systems. Complex Systems, 19(1), 1–28.Zenil, H. (2011). Une approche expérimentale à la théorie algorithmique de la complexité. PhD thesis, Dissertation in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor in Computer Science, Université de Lille.Zenil, H., Soler-Toscano, F., Delahaye, J. P. & Gauvrit, N. (2012). Two-dimensional kolmogorov complexity and validation of the coding theorem method by compressibility. arXiv, preprint arXiv:1212.6745

On the convergence of autonomous agent communities

This is the post-print version of the final published paper that is available from the link below. Copyright @ 2010 IOS Press and the authors.Community is a common phenomenon in natural ecosystems, human societies as well as artificial multi-agent systems such as those in web and Internet based applications. In many self-organizing systems, communities are formed evolutionarily in a decentralized way through agents' autonomous behavior. This paper systematically investigates the properties of a variety of the self-organizing agent community systems by a formal qualitative approach and a quantitative experimental approach. The qualitative formal study by applying formal specification in SLABS and Scenario Calculus has proven that mature and optimal communities always form and become stable when agents behave based on the collective knowledge of the communities, whereas community formation does not always reach maturity and optimality if agents behave solely based on individual knowledge, and the communities are not always stable even if such a formation is achieved. The quantitative experimental study by simulation has shown that the convergence time of agent communities depends on several parameters of the system in certain complicated patterns, including the number of agents, the number of community organizers, the number of knowledge categories, and the size of the knowledge in each category

An Abstract Formal Basis for Digital Crowds

Crowdsourcing, together with its related approaches, has become very popular in recent years. All crowdsourcing processes involve the participation of a digital crowd, a large number of people that access a single Internet platform or shared service. In this paper we explore the possibility of applying formal methods, typically used for the verification of software and hardware systems, in analysing the behaviour of a digital crowd. More precisely, we provide a formal description language for specifying digital crowds. We represent digital crowds in which the agents do not directly communicate with each other. We further show how this specification can provide the basis for sophisticated formal methods, in particular formal verification.Comment: 32 pages, 4 figure

Organisational Abstractions for the Analysis and Design of Multi-Agent Systems

The architecture of a multi-agent system can naturally be viewed as a computational organisation. For this reason, we believe organisational abstractions should play a central role in the analysis and design of such systems. To this end, the concepts of agent roles and role models are increasingly being used to specify and design multi-agent systems. However, this is not the full picture. In this paper we introduce three additional organisational concepts - organisational rules, organisational structures, and organisational patterns - that we believe are necessary for the complete specification of computational organisations. We view the introduction of these concepts as a step towards a comprehensive methodology for agent-oriented systems