Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCranefield, Stephenen_NZ
dc.date.available2011-04-07T03:06:38Z
dc.date.copyright2004-12en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationCranefield, S. (2004). Reliable group communication and institutional actions in a multi-agent trading scenario (Information Science Discussion Papers Series No. 2004/03). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/1119en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10523/1119
dc.description.abstractThe use of asynchronous communication is traditionally seen to be an important element of an agent’s autonomy. This paper argues that groups of agents within a society need the ability to choose forms of communication with stronger guarantees for particular interactions, and in particular, focuses on the use of reliable group communication. An example electronic trading scenario — the game of Pit — is presented, and it is shown how a formal institution for a particular critical phase of Pit can be built on top of the semantics for totally ordered and virtually synchronous multicasting.en_NZ
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.publisherUniversity of Otagoen_NZ
dc.relation.ispartofseriesInformation Science Discussion Papers Seriesen_NZ
dc.subject.lcshQA75 Electronic computers. Computer scienceen_NZ
dc.subject.lcshQA76 Computer softwareen_NZ
dc.titleReliable group communication and institutional actions in a multi-agent trading scenarioen_NZ
dc.typeDiscussion Paperen_NZ
dc.description.versionUnpublisheden_NZ
otago.bitstream.pages11en_NZ
otago.date.accession2005-12-02en_NZ
otago.schoolInformation Scienceen_NZ
otago.openaccessOpen
otago.place.publicationDunedin, New Zealanden_NZ
dc.identifier.eprints28en_NZ
otago.school.eprintsSoftware Engineering & Collaborative Modelling Laboratoryen_NZ
otago.school.eprintsInformation Scienceen_NZ
dc.description.referencesK. P. Birman and T. A. Joseph. Reliable communication in the presence of failures. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 5(1):47–76, 1987. P. Busetta, A. Donà, and M. Nori. Channeled multicast for group communications. In Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pages 1280–1287. ACM Press, 2002. D. R. Cheriton and D. Skeen. Understanding the limitations of causally and totally ordered communication. Operating Systems Review, 27(5):44–57, 1993. (Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles). M. Colombetti. Agent communication. Unpublished seminar notes, University of Otago, 2003. U. Cortés. Electronic institutions and agents. AgentLink News, 15:14–15, September 2004. http://www.agentlink.org/newsletter/15/AL-15.pdf. D. Dolev and D. Malki. The Transis approach to high availability cluster computing. Communications of the ACM, 39(4):64–70, 1996. E. Emerson and J. Halpern. “Sometimes” and “not never” revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 33(1):151–178, 1986. R. Fagin, J.Y.Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995. T. Finin, Y. Labrou, and J. Mayfield. KQML as an agent communication language. In J. M. Bradshaw, editor, Software Agents. MIT Press, 1997. FIPA. FIPA ACL message representation in string specification, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00070/, 2002. JGroups project home page. http://www.jgroups.org, 2004. S. Kumar, M. J. Huber, D. McGee, P. R. Cohen, and H. J. Levesque. Semantics of agent communication languages for group interaction. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2000), pages 42–47. AAAI Press / MIT Press, 2000. A. U. Mallya, P. Yolum, and M. P. Singh. Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In F. Dignum, editor, Advances in Agent Communication, International Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, ACL 2003, volume 2922 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 166–182. Springer, 2004. G. Neiger and S. Toueg. Simulating synchronized clocks and common knowledge in distributed systems. Journal of the ACM, 40(2):334–367, 1993. Object Management Group. UML 2.0 superstructure final adopted specification. Document ptc/03-08-02, http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?ptc/2003-08-02, 2003. Parker Brothers. Pit rules. http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/pit.pdf, 1904. S. Paurobally, J. Cunningham, and N. R. Jennings. Ensuring consistency in the joint beliefs of interacting agents. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pages 662–669. ACM Press, 2003. M. Purvis, M. Nowostawski, S. Cranefield, and M. Oliveira. Multi-agent interaction technology for peer-to-peer computing in electronic trading environments. In C. Zhang, H. W. Guesgen, and W. Yeap, editors, Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 3157 of Lecture Notes In Artificial Intelligence, pages 625–634. Springer, 2004. H. van Ditmarsch. Some game theory of Pit. In C. Zhang, H. W. Guesgen, and W. Yeap, editors, Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 3157 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 946–947. Springer, 2004. M. Verdicchio and M. Colombetti. A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pages 528–535. ACM Press, 2003. M. Verdicchio and M. Colombetti. A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In F. Dignum, editor, Advances in Agent Communication, International Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, ACL 2003, volume 2922 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 128–145. Springer, 2004. M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2):115–152, 1995.en_NZ
otago.relation.number2004/03en_NZ
 Find in your library

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record