1 / 22

M.P. Singh - Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles

M.P. Singh - Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles. Alessandro Giusti March, 28 2006. Philips. Microsoft. Sony. Agent Communication Languages. Allow agents to communicate Interoperability (key feature) Other key agent features Autonomy Heterogeneity.

liluye
Download Presentation

M.P. Singh - Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. M.P. Singh - Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles Alessandro Giusti March, 28 2006

  2. Philips Microsoft Sony Agent Communication Languages • Allow agents to communicate • Interoperability (key feature) • Other key agent features • Autonomy • Heterogeneity

  3. Reality check (1998) Verbatim: “Theoretically, an ACL should let heterogeneous agents communicate. However, none currently do.” • No interoperability Who to blame? Philips Microsoft

  4. Thesis • Blame current ACLs • Knowledge Query Management Language (KQML): based on wrong principles • France Telecom’s Arcol: based on wrong principles • FIPA ACL: based on wrong principles  A paradigm shift is needed FAILED FAILED

  5. What principles? Analysis of communication dimensions: • Perspective • Type of meaning • Semantic / Pragmatic focus • Context • Coverage of communicative acts

  6. 1 - Perspective • Private • Sender’s perspective • Receiver’s perspective • Public • Multiagent system’s perspective Private perspectives are approximations of the public perspective

  7. 1 - Perspective • Public perspective is needed: • ACLs must be normative • Agents must be tested for compliance • The ACL must have a public perspective (or compliance testing is not possible) • KQML and Arcol: private perspective

  8. 2 - Type of meaning • Personal • Meaning: intent or interpretation of receiver or sender • Conventional • Meaning: usage conventions Language is a system of conventions Different conventions need different communicative acts

  9. 2 - Type of meaning • Conventional meaning is needed • KQML and Arcol: personal meaning • Different communicative acts do not capture different conventions

  10. Dialects • KQML failed because many dialects arose; • Blame private perspective and personal meaning: • Idiolects"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.“ Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There” (1871)

  11. 3 - Semantics versus pragmatics Meaning = Semantics + Pragmatics • Semantics • what symbols denote • Pragmatics • how syntactic symbols are interpreted and used • involves mental states and the environment • constrain how agents interact

  12. 3 - Semantics versus pragmatics • Semantics-focused language is needed • Pragmatics require fully-cooperative agents • Pragmatics fail where sincerity cannot be taken for granted • KQML and Arcol: Pragmatics-focused languages

  13. 4 - Context Communication context: needed for understanding. • Fixed context • Flexible context Goal: flexible context

  14. 5 - Coverage of communicative acts • Seven categories: • Assertives • Directives • Commissives • Permissives • Prohibitives • Declaratives • Expressives • Limited coverage vs Full coverage • Full coverage is needed • KQML and Arcol have limited coverage

  15. Opposing paradigms • Mental Agency • Focus on mental state (e.g. BDI) • Assumes intentional stance • How to determine the mental state of agents? • Introspection: unsatisfactory or impossible • “Mental state” is an abstract concept: only the agent designer warrants compliance. • Social Agency • Focus on agent behavior (external) • “Social creatures” (sic) • Compliance : obey conventions in society (self-evident)

  16. Autonomy Design autonomy: agent designer’s freedom: • Promotes heterogeneity and applications • KQML and Arcol require that agents have BDI-based mental states Execution autonomy: agent’s freedom • Arcol assumes sincere, cooperative, benevolent agents • KQML is less strict

  17. Proposed solution • Social agency • Different from traditional ACLs • Goals: • Public perspective • Conventional meaning • Semantics over pragmatics • Flexible context • Full communicative acts coverage

  18. Protocols • Agents play different roles • Roles • Define commitments/obligations • Restrictions on behavior and communication • Agents can manipulate/cancel commitments •  Metacommitments (avoid chaos) • Protocol • Set of commitments • Testability without introspection; closed-source friendly. • Autonomy • Everything is allowed as soon as commitments are met • Context is society (“Social context”) • Context is better known and agreed on  better communication

  19. Dialects in societies • Agent societies are free from idiolects • No private perspective nor personal meaning • Dialects  good • Allow “context sensitivity” and real-world applications • Do not involve introspection • No risk of Humpty Dumptyism

  20. Instantiation • How is this translated into practice? • No clear answer • A purely behavior-based approach is not viable – too limiting. • The purely-mentalist approach has been criticized so far • Combine both solutions: • Define when a communicative act is satisfied • Assertive: if the world matches what is described • Directive: the receiver acts to ensure success • Commissive: the sender acts to ensure success • Coarse canonical set of objective definitions • Do not ascribe beliefs and intentions to agents

  21. Comments / critique • Rewrite: • BDI-based languages have drawbacks: • Too strict • Require introspection for compliance testing • Limits autonomy • Requires full cooperation ... but many of the critiques are not adequately justified. • Behavior-Commitments based agencies sound good • Upon closer inspection, they have their limits as well: not powerful enough. • Proposed solution is a not-better defined mix between the two

  22. Conclusion • FIPA ACL is based on wrong principles... • every possible communication dimension is wrong • ... but after 8 years FIPA ACL is the standard. • Some of the proposed concepts are intriguing, but they can not be easily translated into practice.

More Related