Use of UML 2.1 to model multi-agent systems based on a goal-driven software engineering ontology

In this paper, we present the use of UML 2.1 to model multi-agent systems based on a goal-driven software engineering ontology. The lack of an efficient standardized modeling language is evident. The uses of UML and stereotypes UML to model multi-agent systems have been proposed. However, there are still a number of issues with the existing approaches due to inconsistent semantics of the existing UML diagrams and unintuitive and complext notations. UML 2.1 allows representing more complex scenarios and introducing greater details into the modeling process enabling effective capture and representation of multi-agent actions and interactions. UML 2.1 has not only enabled the introduction of a notation for the Ontology based multi-agent systems, but also effective capture and representation of the dynamic processes associated with these Ontology based multi-agent systems

Requirements Modeling for Multi-Agent Systems

Different approaches for building modern software systems in complex and open environments have been proposed in the last few years. Some efforts try to take advantage of the agent-oriented paradigm to model/engineer complex information systems in terms of independent agents. These agents may collaborate in a computational organization (Multi-Agent Systems, MAS) by playing some specific roles having to interact with others in order to reach a global or individual goal. In addition, due to the complex nature of this type of systems, dealing with the classical functional and structural perspectives of software systems are not enough. The organizational perspective, that describes the context where these agents need to collaborate, and the social behavior perspective, that describes the different "intelligent" manners in which these agents can collaborate, need to be identified and properly specified. Several methodologies have been proposed to drive the development of MAS (e.g., Ingenias, Gaia, Tropos) although most of them mainly focus on the design and implementation phases and do not provide adequate mechanisms for capturing, defining, and specifying software requirements. Poor requirements engineering is recognized as the root of most errors in current software development projects, and as a means for improving the quality of current practices in the development of MAS, the main objective of this work is to propose a requirements modeling process to deal with software requirements covering the functional, structural, organizational, and social behavior perspectives of MAS. The requirements modeling proposed is developed within the model-driven engineering context defining the corresponding metamodel and its graphical syntax. In addition, a MAS requirements modeling process is specified using the Object Management Group's (OMG) Software Process Engineering Metamodel (SPEM). Finally, in order to illustrate the feasibility of our approach, we specified the software requirements of a strategic board game (the Diplomacy game).Rodríguez Viruel, ML. (2011). Requirements Modeling for Multi-Agent Systems. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/11416Archivo delegad

Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems

In the last few years, information system technologies have focused on solving challenges in order to develop distributed applications. Distributed systems can be viewed as collections of service-provider and ser vice-consumer components interlinked by dynamically defined workflows (Luck and McBurney 2008).Alberola Oltra, JM.; Botti Navarro, VJ.; Such Aparicio, JM. (2014). Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems. Information Systems Frontiers. 16:163-167. doi:10.1007/s10796-014-9493-6S16316716Alberola, J. M., Búrdalo, L., Julián, V., Terrasa, A., & García-Fornes, A. (2014). An adaptive framework for monitoring agent organizations. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9478-x .Alfonso, B., Botti, V., Garrido, A., & Giret, A. (2014). A MAS-based infrastructure for negotiation and its application to a water-right market. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9443-8 .Andrighetto, G., Castelfranchi, C., Mayor, E., McBreen, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Parsons, S. (2013). (Social) norm dynamics. In G. Andrighetto, G. Governatori, P. Noriega, & L. W. van der Torre (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems (pp. 135–170). Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl--Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2013). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 73–103.Boissier, O., Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., Ricci, A., & Santi, A. (2013). Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 747–761.Campos, 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), 169–215.Carrera, A., Iglesias, C. A., & Garijo, M. (2014). Beast methodology: an agile testing methodology for multi-agent systems based on behaviour driven development. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9438-5 .Criado, N., Such, J. M., & Botti, V. (2014). Norm reasoning services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9444-7 .Del Val, E., Rebollo, M., & Botti, V. (2014). Enhancing decentralized service discovery in open service-oriented multi-agent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 28(1), 1–30.Denti, E., Omicini, A., & Ricci, A. (2002). Coordination tools for MAS development and deployment. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16(9–10), 721–752.Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2012). A logic of agent organizations. Logic Journal of IGPL, 20(1), 283–316.Ferber, J., & Gutknecht, O. (1998). A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In Multi agent systems. Proceedings. International Conference on (pp. 128–135). IEEE.Fogués, R. L., Such, J. M., Espinosa, A., & Garcia-Fornes, A. (2014). BFF: a tool for eliciting tie strength and user communities in social networking services. Information Systems Frontiers, 16(2). doi: 10.1007/s10796-013-9453-6 .Garcia, 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.Garcia-Fornes, A., Hübner, J., Omicini, A., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Botti, V. (2011). Infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems for the new generation of distributed systems. Engineering Applications of Articial Intelligence, 24(7), 1095–1097.Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Wooldridge, M. (2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 199–215.Jung, Y., Kim, M., Masoumzadeh, A., & Joshi, J. B. (2012). A survey of security issue in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 37(3), 239–260.Kota, R., Gibbins, N., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Decentralized approaches for self-adaptation in agent organizations. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS), 7(1), 1.Kraus, S. (1997). Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 79–97.Lin, Y. I., Chou, Y. W., Shiau, J. Y., & Chu, C. H. (2013). Multi-agent negotiation based on price schedules algorithm for distributed collaborative design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 24(3), 545–557.Luck, M., & McBurney, P. (2008). Computing as interaction: agent and agreement technologies.Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., & Willmott, S. (2005). Agent technology: Computing as interaction (A roadmap for agent based computing). AgentLink.Ossowski, S., & Menezes, R. (2006). On coordination and its significance to distributed and multiagent systems. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 18(4), 359–370.Ossowski, S., Sierra, C., & Botti. (2013). Agreement technologies: A computing perspective. In Agreement Technologies (pp. 3–16). Springer Netherlands.Pinyol, I., & Sabater-Mir, J. (2013). Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review, 40(1), 1–25.Ricci, A., Piunti, M., & Viroli, M. (2011). Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 23(2), 158–192.Sierra, C., & Debenham, J. (2006). Trust and honour in information-based agency. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems, (p. 1225–1232). New York: ACM.Sierra, C., Botti, V., & Ossowski, S. (2011). Agreement computing. KI-Knstliche Intelligenz, 25(1), 57–61.Vasconcelos, W., García-Camino, A., Gaertner, D., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Noriega, P. (2012). Distributed norm management for multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(5), 5990–5999.Wooldridge, M. (2002). An introduction to multiagent systems. New York: Wiley.Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (1995). Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2), 115–152

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

Time-and event-driven communication process for networked control systems: A survey

Copyright © 2014 Lei Zou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.In recent years, theoretical and practical research topics on networked control systems (NCSs) have gained an increasing interest from many researchers in a variety of disciplines owing to the extensive applications of NCSs in practice. In particular, an urgent need has arisen to understand the effects of communication processes on system performances. Sampling and protocol are two fundamental aspects of a communication process which have attracted a great deal of research attention. Most research focus has been on the analysis and control of dynamical behaviors under certain sampling procedures and communication protocols. In this paper, we aim to survey some recent advances on the analysis and synthesis issues of NCSs with different sampling procedures (time-and event-driven sampling) and protocols (static and dynamic protocols). First, these sampling procedures and protocols are introduced in detail according to their engineering backgrounds as well as dynamic natures. Then, the developments of the stabilization, control, and filtering problems are systematically reviewed and discussed in great detail. Finally, we conclude the paper by outlining future research challenges for analysis and synthesis problems of NCSs with different communication processes.This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61329301, 61374127, and 61374010, the Royal Society of the UK, and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation of Germany