Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-9ng7f Total loading time: 0.251 Render date: 2021-06-16T14:32:04.818Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

A generic model for representing openness in multi-agent systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2021

Sondes Hattab
Affiliation:
National School of Computer Sciences, COSMOS Laboratory, University of Manouba, Manouba, Tunisia e-mails: sondes.hattab@ensi-uma.tn, wided.chaari@ensi-uma.tn
Wided Lejouad Chaari
Affiliation:
National School of Computer Sciences, COSMOS Laboratory, University of Manouba, Manouba, Tunisia e-mails: sondes.hattab@ensi-uma.tn, wided.chaari@ensi-uma.tn
Corresponding

Abstract

Openness is a challenging property that may characterize multi-agent systems (MAS). It refers to their ability to deal with entities leaving and joining agent society over time. This property makes the MAS behaviour complex and difficult to study and analyze, hence the need for a representative model allowing its understanding. In this context, many models were defined in the literature and we propose to classify them into three categories: structural models, functional models and interactional models. The existing models were proposed either for representing structural openness or for modelling functional or interactional ones independently. But, none of them was oriented to represent MAS openness in a global way while considering its three aspects at once. Besides, each one was defined in order to realize a specific objective and in a particular domain of application. In this paper, we propose an evolving KAGR graph. The latter provides a common understanding of openness and unifies its structural, functional and interactional aspects in a generic way. Our model is finally tested and validated on a multi-agent rescue simulator.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Abdul-Rahman, A. & Hailes, S. 2000. Supporting trust in virtual communities. In Proceedings of Hawaii’s international Conference on Systems Sciences. IEEE.Google Scholar
Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Chesani, F., Mello, P. & Torroni, P. 2006. Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20(2–4), 133157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldeeb, A., Crockett, K. & Stanatan, M. J. 2008. Multi-Agent based peer-to-peer workflow management system. In Scope of the Symposium, 11.Google Scholar
Alechina, N., Dastani, M. & Logan, B. 2018. Norm specification and verification in multi-agent systems. Journal of Applied Logics 5(2), 457.Google Scholar
Amaral, C. J. & Hübner, J. F. 2019. GoOrg: Automated organisational chart design for open multi-agent systems. In International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 318–321. Springer.Google Scholar
Ancona, D., Ferrando, A. & Mascardi, V. 2017. Parametric runtime verification of multiagent systems. In AAMAS, 17, 1457–1459.Google Scholar
Angluin, D., Aspnes, J., Fischer, M. J. & Jiang, H. 2008. Selfstabilizing population protocols. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 3, 13.Google Scholar
Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V. & Rebollo, M. 2011. An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: the THOMAS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems 29, 379403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J., Busquets, D. & Riverat, R. 2016. Specifying and executing open multi-agent systems. In Social Coordination Frameworks for Social Technical Systems, 197–212. Springer, International Publishing.Google Scholar
Belardinelli, F., Boureanu, I., Dima, C. & Malvone, V. 2019. Verifying strategic abilities in multi-agent systems with private data-sharing. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 1820–1822. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Belardinelli, F., Lomuscio, A. & Malvone, V. 2019. An abstraction-based method for verifying strategic properties in multi-agent systems with imperfect information. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 33, 6030–6037.Google Scholar
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A. & Patti, V. 2006. Verification of protocol conformance and agent interoperability. In International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, 265–283. Springer.Google Scholar
Bijani, S. 2012. A review of attacks and security approaches in open multiagent systems. Artificial Intelligence Review 42(4), 607636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijani, S. & Robertson, D. 2011. Intrusion detection in open peer-to-peer multi-agent systems. In IFIP International Conference on Autonomous Infrastructure, Management and Security, 177–180. Springer.Google Scholar
Boissier, O., Gitton, S. & Glize, P. 2004. Caractéristiques des systems et des applications, Observatoire Francais des Techniques Avancées. Systèmes multi-agents/Observatoire francais des techniques avancées, ARAGO 29, 25–54, Diffusion Editions & Tec Doc.Google Scholar
Calmet, J., Daemi, A., Endsuleit, R. et al. 2003. A liberal approach to openness in societies of agents. In International Workshop On Engineering Societies in the Agents World, 81–92. Springer.Google Scholar
Carbo, J., Molina, J. M. & Davila, J. 2003. Trust management through fuzzy reputation. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 12, 135155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, J., Bitting, E. & Ghorbani, A. 2002. Reputation formalization for an information-sharing multi-agent systems. Computational Intelligence 18, 515534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V., Rebollo, M., Argente, E. & Botti, V. 2009. Service oriented MAS: an open architecture. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1291–1292. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Castelfranchi, C. & Falcone, R. 1998. Social trust. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Minneapolis, USA, 35–49.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, M., Eck, A., Doshi, P. & Soh, L. 2016. Individual planning in open and typed agent systems. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 82–91. AUAI Press.Google Scholar
Chen, B., Chen, X., Timsina, A. & Soh, L. 2015. Considering agent and task openness in ad hoc team formation. In Proceedings of the 2015 International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1861–1862. International Foundation for autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. & Chen, X. 2019. Research on knowledge graph application technology. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1187(4), 042083. IOP Publishing.Google Scholar
Ciortea, A., Mayer, S., Gandon, F., Boissier, O., Ricci, A. & Zimmermann, A. 2019. A decade in hindsight: the missing bridge between multi-agent systems and the World Wide Web. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 1659–1663. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Decker, K., Sycara, K. & Williamson, M. 1997. Middle-Agents for the internet. In IJCAI, 578583.Google Scholar
de Brito, M. & Hubner, J. 2017. Architecture of an institutional platform for multi-agent systems. In PRIMA 2017: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, Nice, France, 313–329.Google Scholar
De Pinninck, A. P., Sierra, C. & Schorlemmer, M. 2010. A multiagent network for peer norm enforcement. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 21(3), 397424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derakhshan, F., Bench-Capon, T. & McBurney, P. 2013. Dynamic assignment of roles, rights and responsibilities in normative multi-agent systems. Journal of Logic and Computation 23(2), 355372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wilde, P. & Briscoe, G. 2011. Stability of evolving multi-agent systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics 41(4), 11491157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esfiandiari, B. & Chandresekharan, S. 2001. On how agents meke friends: mechanism for trust acquisition. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies. Montreal, Canada, 27–34.Google Scholar
Ferreira, A. 2002. On models and algorithms for dynamic networks: the case for evolving graphs. In 4e Rencontres Francophones sur les Aspects Algorithmiques des Tlcommunications, Mze, France.Google Scholar
Ferreira, A. 2003. Building a Reference Combinatorial Model For Dynamic Networks: Initial results in Evolving Graphs. PhD dissertation, INRIA.Google Scholar
Fornara, N., Vigano, F., Verdicchio, M. & Colombetti, M. 2008. Artificial institutions: a model of institutional reality for open multiagent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16, 89105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, K. S., Chin, K. O., Anthony, P. & Hamdan, A. R. 2017. A FIPA-ACL ontology in enhancing interoperability multiagent communication. In International Conference on Computational Science and Technology, 151–160. Springer.Google Scholar
Guan, Y., Ji, Z. & Zhang, L. 2017. Controllability of multi-agent systems under directed topology. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 50(8), 809812.Google Scholar
Guo, J., Liu, W., Xu, L. & Xie, S. 2019. Adaptive graph planning protocol: an adaption approach to collaboration in open multi-agent systems. In CCF Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, 297–303. Springer.Google Scholar
Hattab, S., Ben Hmida, F. & Lejouad Chaari, W. 2017. Using evolving graphs to evaluate structural openness in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Entreprise Information Systems, 591–598. SCITEPRESS.Google Scholar
Hendler, J. 2001. Agents and the semantic web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16(2), 3037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendler, J. 2007. Where are all the intelligent agents?. IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(3), 2–3.Google Scholar
Hendrickx, J. M. & Martin, S. 2016. Open multi-agent systems: Gossiping with deterministic arrivals and departures. In Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), 2016 54th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 1094–1101. IEEE.Google Scholar
Herzig, A., Lorini, E., Hubner, J. F., Ben-Naim, J., Castelfranchi, C., Demelombe, R., Longin, D. & Vercouter, L. 2008. Prolegomena for a logic of trust and reputation. In NORMAS’08, 143–157.Google Scholar
Huang, X., Ruan, J., Chen, Q. & Su, K. 2016. Normative multiagent systems: a dynamic generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.05086.Google Scholar
Hyunh, T., Jennings, N. R. & Shadbolt, N. R. 2006. An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems 13, 119154.Google Scholar
Jirkovsky, V. & Kadera, P. 2019. Data exchange ontology for interoperability facilitation within industrial automation domain. In International Conference on Industrial Applications of Holonic and Multi-Agent Systems, 145–158. Springer.Google Scholar
Jonge, D., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A., Gui, Rosell I, B. & Sierra, C. 2014. Infrastructures to engineer open agent environments by means of electronic institutions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Agent Environments for Multi-Agent, 232–254. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jsang, A., Ismail, R. & Boyd, C. A. 2007. Survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision Support Systems 43, 618644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jumadinova, J., Prithviraj, D. & Leen-Kiat, S. 2014. Strategic capability-learning for improved multi-agent collaboration in ad hoc environmrnts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybermetrics: Sytems 44, 10031014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanfert, J., Scharf, H., Edenhofer, S., TomForde, S., Hahner, J. & Muller-Schoeler, C. 2014. A graph analysis approach to detect attacks in multiagent systems at runtime. In IEEE Eighth International Conference on Self Adaptative and Self Organizing Systems, London, UK.Google Scholar
Kouvaros, P., Lomuscio, A., Pirovano, E. & Punchihewa, H. 2019. Formal verification of open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 179–187. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Liu, L. & Ji, Z. 2018. Controllability of multi-agent systems based on path and cycle graph. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 28(1), 296309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X., Lin, H. & Chen, B. M. 2013. Graph-theoretic characterisations of structural controllability for multi-agent system with switching topology. International Journal of Control 86(2), 222231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, Z., Zhang, L. & Wang, L. 2018. Controllability of discrete-time multiagent systems with switching topology. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 28(6), 25602573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmoud, M. A., Ahmad, M. S., Mohd Yusoff, M. Z. & Mustapha, A. 2014. A review of norms and normative multiagent systems. The Scientific World Journal 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luck, M., McBurney, P. & Preist, C. 2003. Agent technology: enabling next generation computing (a roadmap for agent based computing). AgentLink.Google Scholar
Ma, Z., Schultz, M. J., Christensen, K., Vrbak, M., Demazeau, Y. & Jrgensen, B. N. 2019. The application of ontologies in multi-agent systems in the energy sector: a scoping review. Energies 12(16), 3200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massonet, P., Deville, Y. & Nve, C. 2002. From AOSE methodology to agent implementation. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Italy, 27–34.Google Scholar
Milner, R. 2009. The Space and Motion of Communicating Agents. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, J., Wooldridge, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A. & Lopez-Sanchez, M. 2017. Synthesising Evolutionarily Stable Normative Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.00709.Google Scholar
Padovan, B., Sackmann, S., Eymann, T. & Pippow, I. 2002. A prototype for an agent-based secure electronic marketplace including reputation-tracking mechanisms. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, 93113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perelli, G. 2019. Enforcing equilibria in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 188–196. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Petsch, M. 2002. Openness ans security in the FIPA standard. In Proceedings of MAI, 2, 13–26.Google Scholar
Pico-Valencia, P., Holgado-Terriza, J. A. & Senso, J. A. 2019. Towards an internet of agents model based on linked open data approach. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 33(1–2), 84131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigné, Y. 2009. Modelisation et Traitement decentralise des Graphes Dynamiques: application aux rseaux dynamiques ad hoc. PhD dissertation, University of Havre, France, 1–41.Google Scholar
Pinyol, I. & Sabater-Mir, J. 2013. Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review 40, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platon, E., Sabouret, N. & Honiden, S. 2008. An architecture for exception management in multiagent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 2(3), 267289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahmani, A., Ji, M. & Mesbahi, M. 2009. Controllability of multi-agent systems from a graph theoretic perspective. SIAM Journal of Robust and Optimization 48(1), 162186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, K. & Cohen, R. 2005. Indirect reputation assessment for adaptive buying agents in electronic markets. In Business Agents and the Semantic Web Workshop.Google Scholar
Sabater, J. & Sierra, C. 2001. Regret: a reputation model for gregarious societies. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Montreal, 61–69.Google Scholar
Sabater-Mir, J., Paolucci, M. & Conte, R. 2006. Repage: reputation and image among limited autonomous partners. Journal of artificial societies and social simulation 9(2).Google Scholar
Sebai, A. H. & Chaari, W. L. 2014. CAUMEL: a temporal logic based language for causal maps to explain agent behaviors. In Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications. AISC, Jezic, G., Kusek, M., Lovrek, I., Howlett, R. J. & Jain, L. C. (eds.), 296, 127–138. Springer.Google Scholar
Sebai, A. H. & Chaari, W. L. 2015. Explain-M as: an agent behavior explanation system. In International Conference on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 284–287. Springer.Google Scholar
Sehaba, K. 2002. Gestion de louverture des systems multi-agents. Memoire de DEA. Universite de la Rochelle, France.Google Scholar
Sehory, O. 2001. Software architecture attributes of multi-agent systems. In Agent-Oriented Softaware Engineering, 770–790. Springer.Google Scholar
Spanoudakis, N., Akasiadis, C., Kechagias, G. & Chalkiadakis, G. 2019. An open MAS services architecture for the V2G/G2V problem. In AAMAS 19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Tian, L., Guan, Y. & Wang, L. 2018. Controllability and observability of multi-agent systems with heterogenous and switching topologies. International Journal of Control 93(3), 437448.Google Scholar
Valckenaers, P., Sauter, J., Sierra, C. & Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A. 2007. Applications and environments for multi-agent systems. In Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 6185.Google Scholar
Vercouter, L. & White, E. B. 2000. Conception et mise en oeuvre des systemes multi-agents ouverts et distribues. Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Saint Etienne, Universite Jean Monnet-Saint-Etienne.Google Scholar
Viana, M., Caetano, L., Cunha, F., Alencar, P. & Lucena, C. 2018. Governance in adaptive normative multiagent systems for the internet of smart things: challenges and future directions. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 5193–5196. IEEE.Google Scholar
Weyns, D. 2010. Architecture-Based Design of Multi-Agent Systems. Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyns, D., Michel, F., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Boissier, O., Schumacher, M. & Ricci, A. 2015. Agent environments for multi-agent systems – A Research roadmap. In Agent Environments for Multi-Agent Systems IV, 3–21. Springer.Google Scholar
Xu, H., Zhang, X. & Patel, R. J. 2007. Developing role-based open multi-agent software systems. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Theory and Practice 2(1).Google Scholar
Zaki, A., Attia, M., Hegazy, D. & Amin, S. 2016. Comprehensive survey dynamic graph models. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 7(2), 573582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zegzhda, D. P., Stephanora, T. V. & Suprun, A. F. 2017. Multiagent systems controllability evaluation using the multilevel structure of the graph agents. Automatic Control and Computer Sciences 50(8), 809812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A generic model for representing openness in multi-agent systems
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A generic model for representing openness in multi-agent systems
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A generic model for representing openness in multi-agent systems
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *