Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T02:02:13.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computational logics and verification techniques of multi-agent commitments: survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2015

Mohamed El Menshawy ,
Jamal Bentahar ,
Warda El Kholy ,
Pinar Yolum  and
Rachida Dssouli
Mohamed El Menshawy
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada e-mail: m_elme@encs.concordia.ca, bentahar@ciise.concordia.ca, moh_marzok75@yahoo.com, w_elkh@encs.concordia.ca, rachida.dssouli@concordia.ca Faculty of Computers and Information, Menofia University, Shebin El Kom, Egypt e-mail: m_elme@encs.concordia.ca
Jamal Bentahar
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada e-mail: m_elme@encs.concordia.ca, bentahar@ciise.concordia.ca, moh_marzok75@yahoo.com, w_elkh@encs.concordia.ca, rachida.dssouli@concordia.ca
Warda El Kholy
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada e-mail: m_elme@encs.concordia.ca, bentahar@ciise.concordia.ca, moh_marzok75@yahoo.com, w_elkh@encs.concordia.ca, rachida.dssouli@concordia.ca
Pinar Yolum
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: pinar.yolum@boun.edu.tr
Rachida Dssouli
Affiliation:
Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada e-mail: m_elme@encs.concordia.ca, bentahar@ciise.concordia.ca, moh_marzok75@yahoo.com, w_elkh@encs.concordia.ca, rachida.dssouli@concordia.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agent communication languages (ACLs) are fundamental mechanisms that enable agents in multi-agent systems to talk, communicate with each other in order to satisfy their individual and social goals in a cooperative and competitive manner. Social approaches are advocated to overcome the shortcomings of ACL semantics delineated by using mental approaches in the figure of agents’ mental notions. Over the last two decades, social commitments have been the subject of considerable research in some of those social approaches as they provide a powerful representation for modeling and reasoning upon multi-agent interactions in the form of mutual contractual obligations. They particularly provide a declarative, flexible, verifiable, and social semantics for ACL messages while respecting agents’ autonomy, heterogeneity, and openness.

In this manuscript, we go through prominent and predominate proposals in the literature to explore the state of the art on how temporal logics can be devoted to define a formal semantics for ACL messages in terms of social commitments and associated actions. We explain each proposal and point out if and how it meets seven crucial criteria, four of them introduced by Munindar P. Singh to have a well-defined semantics for ACL messages. Far from deciding the best proposal, our aim is to present the advantages (strengths) and limitations of those proposals to designers and developers using a concrete running example and to compare between them, so that they can make the best choice with regard to their needs. We explore and evaluate current specification languages and different verification techniques that have been discussed within those proposals to, respectively, specify and verify commitment-based protocols. We also investigate logical languages of actions advocated to specify, model, and execute commitment-based protocols in other contributed proposals. Finally, we suggest some solutions that can contribute to address the identified limitations.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 30 , Issue 5 , November 2015 , pp. 564 - 606
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P. & Torroni, P. 2008. Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: the SCIFF framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9(4), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Saqqar, F., Bentahar, J., Sultan, K. & El-Menshawy, M. 2014. On the interaction between knowledge and social commitments in multi-agent systems. Applied Intelligence 41(1), 235–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Saqqar, F., Bentahar, J., Sultan, K., Wan, W. & Khosrowshahi Asl, E. 2015. Model checking temporal knowledge and commitments in multi-agent systems using reduction. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 51, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A. & Kupferman, O. 2002. Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of ACM 49(5), 672–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artikis, A. & Pitt, J.V. 2009. Specifying open agent systems: a survey. In ESAW, Artikis, A., Picard, G. & Vercouter, L. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5485, 29–45. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Artikis, A., Sergot, M. & Pitt, J. 2009. Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 10(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C. & Marengo, E. 2010. Behavior oriented commitment-based protocols. In ECAI, Coelho, H., Studer, R. & Wooldridge, M. (eds), 215. IOS Press, 137–142.Google Scholar
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C. & Marengo, E. 2011. Commitment-based protocols with behavioral rules and correctness properties of MAS. In DALT, Omicini, A., Sardiña, S. & Vasconcelos, W. (eds), LNCS 6619. 60–77. Springer.Google Scholar
Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Marengo, E. & Patti, V. 2013. Constitutive and regulative specifications of commitment protocols: a decoupled approach. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 4(2), 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., Qu, H. & Dssoulia, R. 2012. Communicative commitments: model checking and complexity analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems 35, 21–34. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentahar, J., Maamar, Z., Wan, W., Benslimane, D., Thiran, P. & Subramanian, S. 2008. Agent-based communities of web services: an argumentation-driven approach. Service Oriented Computing and Applications 2(4), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentahar, J., Meyer, J.-J.Ch. & Wan, W. 2010. Model checking agent communication. In Specification and Verification of Multi-Agent Systems, chapter 3, 1st edition, Dastani, M., Hindriks, K. & Meyer, J.-J.Ch. (eds). Springer, pp. 67–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentahar, J., Meyer, J.-J.Ch. & Wan, W. 2009. Model checking communicative agent-based systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 22, 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentahar, J., Moulin, B. & Chaib-draa, B. 2003. Towards a formal framework for conversational agents, In Proceedings of the International Workshop on ACLCP.Google Scholar
Bentahar, J., Moulin, B. & Chaib-draa, B. 2004a. Commitment and argument network: a new formalism for agent communication. In ACL, Dignum, F. (ed.), LNCS 2922. 146–165. Springer.Google Scholar
Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Meyer, J.-J.Ch. & Chaib-draa, B. 2004b. A logical model for commitment and argument network for agent communication. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on AAMAS, 792–799. IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Meyer, J.-J.Ch. & Lespérance, Y. 2007. A new logical semantics for agent communication. In CLIMA, Inoue, K., Satoh, K. & Toni, F. (eds), LNCS 4371. 151–170. Springer.Google Scholar
Bhat, G., Cleaveland, R. & Groce, A. 2001. Efficient model checking via Büchi tableau automata. In CAV, Berry, G., Comon, H. & Finkel, A. (eds), LNCS 2102. 38–52. Springer.Google Scholar
Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F. & Mylopoulos, J. 2004. Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabri, G., Leonardi, L., Ferrari, L. & Zambonelli, F. 2010. Role-based software agent interaction models: a survey. Knowledge Engineering Review 25(4), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelfranchi, C. 1995. Commitments: from individual intentions to groups and organizations. In ICMAS, Lesser, V. & Gasser, L. (eds). The MIT Press, 41–48.Google Scholar
Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M. & Torroni, P. 2013. Representing and monitoring social commitments using the e.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 27(1), 85–130.Google Scholar
Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M. & Torroni, P. 2009. Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In IJCAI, Boutilier, C. (ed.). AAAI Press, 91–96.Google Scholar
Chopra, A. & Singh, M. 2004. Nonmonotonic commitment machines. In ACL, Dignum, F. (ed.), LNCS 2922. 183–200. Springer.Google Scholar
Chopra, A. & Singh, M. 2006. Contextualizing commitment protocols. In AAMAS, Nakashima H., Wellman M., Weiss, G. & Stone, P. (eds). ACM, 1345–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chopra, A. & Singh, M. 2008. Constitutive interoperability. In AAMAS, Padgham, L., Parkes, D., Müller, J. & Parsons, S. (eds), 2. IFAAMAS, 797–804.Google Scholar
Chopra, A. & Singh, M. 2009. Multiagent commitment alignment. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on AAMAS, 937–944. ACM Press.Google Scholar
Chopra, A.K., Artikis, A., Bentahar, J., Colombetti, M., Dignum, F., Fornara, N., Jones, A.J.I., Singh, M.P. & Yolum, P. 2013. Research directions in agent communication. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 4(2), 20. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cimatti, A., Clarke, E., Giunchiglia, E., Giunchiglia, F., Pistore, M., Roveri, M., Sebastiani, R. & Tacchella, A. 2002. NuSMV: an open source tool for symbolic model checking. In CAV, Brinksma, E. & Larsen, K.G. (eds), LNCS 2404. 359–364. Springer.Google Scholar
Clarke, E. & Emerson, E. 1982. Design and synthesis of synchronization skeletons using branching time temporal logic. In Logics of Programs, Kozen, D. (ed.), LNCS 131. 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, E., Emerson, E. & Sistla, A. 1986. Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGACT-SIGPLAN Symposium on PPL, POPL’83, 117–126. ACM.Google Scholar
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O. & Peled, D. 1999. Model Checking. The MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. & Levesque, H. 1990. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2–3), 213–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colombetti, M. 2000. A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In Proceedings of International Workshop on ALCP, 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2000), 21–29.Google Scholar
Colombetti, M., Fornara, N. & Verdicchio, M. 2004. A social approach to communication in multiagent systems. In DALT, Leite, J.A., Omicini, A., Sterling, L. & Torroni, P. (eds), LNCS 2990. 191–220. Springer.Google Scholar
Desai, N., Cheng, Z., Chopra, A. & Singh, M. 2007. Toward verification of commitment protocols and their compositions. In AAMAS, Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N. & Shehory, O. (eds). IFAAMAS, 144–146.Google Scholar
Desai, N., Mallya, A., Chopra, A. & Singh, M. 2005. Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desai, N. & Singh, M. 2007. A modular action description language for protocol composition. In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 962–967.Google Scholar
Dignum, F. & Greaves, M. (eds) 2000. Issues in Agent Communication, LNCS 1916. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Kholy, W., Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., Qu, H. & Dssouli, R. 2014a. Conditional commitments: reasoning and model checking. ACM Transaction on Software Engineering and Methodology 24(2), 9:1–9:49. ACM.Google Scholar
El-Kholy, W., Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., Qu, H. & Dssouli, R. 2014b. Modeling and verifying choreographed multi-agent-based web service compositions regulated by commitment protocols. Expert Systems with Applications 41, 7478–7494. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Kholy, W., El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H. & Dssouli, R. 2014c. Verifying multiagent-based web service compositions regulated by commitment protocols. In Proceedings of 21th IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS), 49–56. IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Kholy, W., El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H. & Dssouli, R. 2015. Formal specification and automatic verification of conditional commitments. IEEE Intelligent Systems 30(2), 36–44. IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J. & Dssouli, R. 2009a. Enhancing engineering methodology for communities of web services. In MALLOW, Baldoni, M. et al. (eds), 494. CEUR-WS.org. pp. 33–42.Google Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J. & Dssouli, R. 2009b. An integrated semantics of social commitments and associated operations. In MALLOW, Baldoni, M. et al. (eds), 494. CEUR-WS.org. pp. 222–230.Google Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J. & Dssouli, R. 2010a. Modeling and verifying business interactions via commitments and dialogue actions. In KES-AMSTA, Jedrzejowicz, P., Nguyen, N.T., Howlett, R.J. & Jain, L.C. (eds), LNCS 6071. 11–21. Springer.Google Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J. & Dssouli, R. 2010b. Verifiable semantic model for agent interactions using social commitments. In LADS, Dastani, M., Fallah-Seghrouchni, A.E., Leite, J. & Torroni, P. (eds), LNCS 6039. 128–152. Springer.Google Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J. & Dssouli, R. 2011a. Model checking commitment protocols. In IEA–AIE, Mehrotra, K.G. et al. (eds), LNCS 6704. 37–47. Springer.Google Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J. & Dssouli, R. 2011b. Symbolic model checking commitment protocols using reduction. In DALT, Omicini, A., Sardina, S. & Vasconcelos, W. (eds), LNAI 6619. 185–203. Springer.Google Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., El-Kholy, W. & Dssouli, R. 2013a. Verifying conformance of multi-agent commitment-based protocols. Expert Systems with Applications 40(1), 122–138. Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., El-Kholy, W. & Dssouli, R. 2013b. Reducing model checking commitments for agent communication to model checking ARCTL and GCTL*. Autonomous Agent Multi-Agent Systems 27(3), 375–418. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H. & Dssouli, R. 2011c. On the verification of social commitments and time. In AAMAS, Sonenberg, L., Stone, P., Tumer, K. & Yolum, P. (eds). IFAAMAS, 483–490.Google Scholar
Emerson, E. 1990. Temporal and modal logic. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Semantics (B), chapter 16, van Leeuwen, J. (ed.). Elsevier, 995–1072.Google Scholar
Emerson, E. & Halpern, J. 1986. Sometimes and not never, revisited: on branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of ACM 33(1), 151–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y. & Vardi, M. 1995. Reasoning About Knowledge. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fornara, N. & Colombetti, M. 2002. Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on AAMS, 535–542. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornara, N. & Colombetti, M. 2003. Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on AAMAS, 520–527. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornara, N., Viganò, F., Verdicchio, M. & Colombetti, M. 2008. Artificial institutions: a model of institutional reality for open multi-agent systems. AI and Law 16(1), 89–105.Google Scholar
Gascueña, J. & Fernández-Caballero, A. 2011. On the use of agent technology in intelligent, multisensory and distributed surveillance. Knowledge Engineering Review 26(2), 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, S. & Singh, M. 2013. Formalizing and verifying protocol refinements. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 4(2), 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordano, L., Martelli, A. & Schwind, C. 2003. Specifying and verifying systems of communicating agents in a temporal action logic. In AI*IA, Cappelli, A. & Turini, F. (eds), LNCS 2829. 262–274. Springer.Google Scholar
Giordano, L., Martelli, A. & Schwind, C. 2007. Specifying and verifying interaction protocols in a temporal action logic. Journal of Applied Logic 5(2), 214–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N. & Turner, H. 2004. Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153(1–2), 49–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. 1978. Notes on database operating systems. In Advanced Course: Operating Systems, Flynn, M.J., Gray, J., Jones, A.K., Lagally, K., Opderbeck, H., Popek, G.J., Randell, B., Saltzer, J.H. & Wiehle, H. (eds), LNCS 60. 393–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günay, A. & Yolum, P. 2013. Constraint satisfaction as a tool for modeling and checking feasibility of multiagent commitments. Applied Intelligence 39(3), 489–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. The Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hamblin, C. 1970. Fallacies. Methuen.Google Scholar
Holzmann, G. 1997. The model checker SPIN. Software Engineering 23(5), 279–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, M. & Ryan, M. 2004. Logic in Computer Science: Modelling and Reasoning About System, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, N. 1993. Commitments and conventions: the foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 8(3), 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafali, Ö., Günay, A. & Yolum, P. 2014. Detecting and predicting privacy violations in online social networks. Distributed and Parallel Databases 32, 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kafali, Ö. & Torroni, P. 2011. Social commitment delegation and monitoring. In CLIMA XII, Leite, J., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G. & van der Torre, L. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6814. 171–189. Springer.Google Scholar
Kafali, Ö. & Torroni, P. 2012. Exception diagnosis in multiagent contract executions. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 64(1), 73–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labrou, Y. & Finin, T. 1998. Semantics and conversations for an agent communication language. In ATAL, Singh, M.P., Rao, A.S. & Wooldridge, M. (eds), LNCS 1365. 209–214. Springer.Google Scholar
Lim, M. & Zhang, Z. 2012. A multi-agent system using iterative bidding mechanism to enhance manufacturing agility. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 8259–8273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomuscio, A., Pecheur, C. & Raimondi, F. 2007. Automatic verification of knowledge and time with NuSMV. In Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on AI, 1384–1389.Google Scholar
Lomuscio, A., Qu, H. & Raimondi, F. 2009. MCMAS: a model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. In CAV, Bouajjani, A. & Maler, O. (eds), LNCS 5643. 682–688. Springer.Google Scholar
Lomuscio, A., Qu, H. & Solanki, M. 2012. Towards verifying contract regulated service composition. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 24(3), 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallya, A. & Huhns, M. 2003. Commitments among agents. IEEE Internet Computing 7(4), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallya, A. & Singh, M. 2007. An algebra for commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2), 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallya, A., Yolum, P. & Singh, M. 2004. Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In ACL, Dignum, F. (ed.), LNCS 2922. 166–182. Springer.Google Scholar
Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A., Patti, V. & Singh, M. 2011. Commitments with regulations: reasoning about safety and control in REGULA. In AAMAS, Tumer, K., Yolum, P., Sonenberg, L. & Stone, P. (eds). IFAAMAS, 467–474.Google Scholar
Maudet, N. & Chaib-Draa, B. 2002. Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols: new trends in agent communication languages. Knowledge Engineering Review 17(2), 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakano, M., Hasegawa, Y., Funakoshi, K., Takeuchi, J., Torii, T., Nakadai, K., Kanda, N., Komatani, K., Okuno, H. & Tsujino, H. 2011. A multi-expert model for dialogue and behavior control of conversational robots and agents. Knowledge-Based Systems 24(2), 248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecheur, C. & Raimondi, F. 2007. Symbolic model checking of logics with actions. In Model Checking and Artificial Intelligence, Edelkamp, S. & Lomuscio, A. (eds), LNCS 4428. 113–128. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penczek, W. & Lomuscio, A. 2003. Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via bounded model checking. Fundamenta Informaticae 55(2), 167–185.Google Scholar
Pham, D. & Harland, J. 2007. Temporal linear logics as a basis for flexible agent interactions. In AAMAS, Durfee, E., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M. & Shehory, O. (eds). 124–131.Google Scholar
Pnueli, A. 1977. The temporal logic of programs. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on FOCS, 46–57. IEEE Computer Society Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Richiardia, M. 2012. Agent-based computational economics: a short introduction. Knowledge Engineering Review 27(2), 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacerdoti, E. 1977. The Structure of Plans and Behavior. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schnoebelen, P. 2003. The complexity of temporal logic model checking. In Advances in Modal Logic, Philippe Balbiani, Nobu-Yuki Suzuki, Frank Wolter & Michael Zakharyaschev (eds), Advances in Modal Logic 4. 1–44. King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanahan, M. 1997. Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shanahan, M. 2000. An abductive event calculus planner. Logic Programming 44, 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M. 1991. Social and psychological commitments in multiagent systems. In AAAI Fall Symposium on KA at SOL, 104–106.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 1996. A Conceptual Analysis of Commitments in Multiagent Systems. Technical report, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 1997. Commitments among autonomous agents in information-rich Environments. In MAAMAW, Boman, M. & van de Velde, W. (eds), LNCS 1237. 141–155. Springer.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 1998. Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer Society 31(12), 40–47.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 1999. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: toward a unification of normative concepts. AI and Law 7(1), 97–113.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 2000. A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Issues in Agent Communication, Dignum, F. & Greaves, M. (eds), LNCS 1916. 31–45. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M. 2007. Formalizing communication protocols for multiagent systems. In IJCAI, Veloso, M.M. (ed.). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1519–1524.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 2008. Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In AAAI, Fox, D. & Gomes, C.P. (eds). AAAI Press, 176–181.Google Scholar
Singh, M. & Chopra, A. 2010. Programming multiagent systems without programming agents. In ProMAS, Braubach, L., Briot, J.-P. & Thangarajah, J. (eds), LNCS 5919. 1–14. Springer.Google Scholar
Singh, M., Chopra, A. & Desai, N. 2009. Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Computer 42(11), 72–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirbu, M. 1997. Credits and debits on the internet. IEEE Spectrum 34(2), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, E. & Richards, D. 2010. Agent-based systems for human learners. Knowledge Engineering Review 25(2), 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoletini, P. 2005. Verification of Temporal Logic Specification via Model Checking. PhD thesis, Politecnico di Milano.Google Scholar
Spoletini, P. & Verdicchio, M. 2007. Commitment monitoring in a multi-agent system. In CEEMAS, Burkhard, H.-D., Lindemann, G., Verbrugge, R. & Varga, L.Z. (eds), LNCS 4696. 83–92. Springer.Google Scholar
Spoletini, P. & Verdicchio, M. 2009. An automata-based monitoring technique for commitment-based multiagent systems. In COIN, Hübner, J.F., Matson, E.T., Boissier, O. & Dignum, V. (eds), LNCS 5428. 172–187. Springer.Google Scholar
Sultan, K., Bentahar, J. & El-Menshawy, M. 2014. Model checking probabilistic social commitments for intelligent agent communication. Applied Soft Computing 22, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sultan, K., El-Menshawy, M. & Bentahar, J. 2013. Reasoning about social commitments in the presence of uncertainty. In IEEE 12th International Conference on Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, 29–35.Google Scholar
Telang, P. & Singh, M. 2009a. Business modeling via commitments. In SOCASE, Kowalczyk, R., Vo, Q., Maamar, Z. & Huhns, M. (eds), LNCS 5907. 111–125. Springer.Google Scholar
Telang, P. & Singh, M. 2009b. Enhancing Tropos with commitments. In Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications, Borgida, A., Chaudhri, V.K., Giorgini, P. & Yu, E.S.K. (eds), LNCS 5600. 417–435. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telang, P. & Singh, M. 2012. Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models: an agent-oriented approach. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 5(3), 305–318. IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torroni, P., Chesani, F., Mello, P. & Montali, M. 2010. Social commitments in time: satisfied or compensated. In DALT, Baldoni, M., Bentahar, J., van Riemsdijk, M.B. & Lloyd, J. (eds), LNCS 5948. 228–243. Springer.Google Scholar
Venkatraman, M. & Singh, M. 1999. Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: enabling open web-based multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdicchio, M. & Colombetti, M. 2003. A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on AAMAS, 528–535.Google Scholar
Verdicchio, M. & Colombetti, M. 2004. A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In ACL, Dignum, F. (ed.), LNCS 2922. 128–145. Springer.Google Scholar
Verdicchio, M. & Colombetti, M. 2005. Dealing with time in content language expressions. In AC, van Eijk, R., Huget, M. & Dignum, F. (eds), LNCS 3396. 91–105. Springer.Google Scholar
Verdicchio, M. & Colombetti, M. 2006. From message exchanges to communicative acts to commitments. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 157, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidoni, R., Garca-Sánchez, F., Gasparetto, A. & Martnez-Béjar, R. 2011. An intelligent framework to manage robotic autonomous agents. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 7430–7439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. & Krabbe, E. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, G. 1999. Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Winikoff, M. 2007. Implementing commitment-based interactions. In AAMAS, Durfee, E., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M. & Shehory, O. (eds). ACM, 873–880.Google Scholar
Winikoff, M., Liu, W. & Harland, J. 2005. Enhancing commitment machines. In DALT, Leite, J.A., Omicini, A., Torroni, P. & Yolum, P. (eds), LNCS 3476. 198–220. Springer.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M. 2000. Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(1), 9–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, M. 2009. An Introduction to Multi-Agent Systems. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Xing, J. & Singh, M. 2001. Formalization of commitment-based agent interaction. In SAC, 115–120. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xing, J. & Singh, M. 2003. Engineering commitment-based multiagent systems: a temporal logic approach. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on AAMAS, 891–898.Google Scholar
Yolum, P. 2007. Design time analysis of multiagent protocols. Data and Knowledge Engineering 63(1), 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yolum, P. & Singh, M. 2002a. Commitment machines. In ATAL, Meyer, J.-J.Ch. & Tambe, M. (eds), LNCS 2333. 235–247. Springer.Google Scholar
Yolum, P. & Singh, M. 2002b. Flexible protocol specification and execution: applying event calculus planning using commitments. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on AAMAS, 527–534. ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yolum, P. & Singh, M. 2004. Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: an approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42(1–3), 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar