1. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol http://agents.felk.cvut.cz/c-cnp Jiří Vokřínek, Jiří Bíba, Jiří Hodík, Jaromír Vybíhal, Michal Pěchouček {vokrinek,biba,hodik,vybihj1,pechouc}@labe.felk.cvut.cz Gerstner Laboratory, Department of Cybernetics Faculty of Electrical Engineering Czech Technical University in Prague Czech Republic 24 th January 2007 Jiří Bíba SOFSEM 2007 Harrachov, CR

2. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Outline... By concluding commitments the game does not end, but rather starts! Motto: By concluding commitments the game does not end, but rather starts! Negotiation protocols for real-world competitive domains should allow for the natural behaviour of the involved parties, enable flexibility of cooperation, and take into account whole life-cycle of negotiated commitments with respect to their duration, eventual evolution and termination.  Agent Environments (cooperation, commitments, flexibility)  Interaction Protocols (limitations)  Competitive Contract Net Protocol (C-CNP)  Performatives in C-CNP (semantics)  Conclusion  Discussion

3. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Agent Environments  Collaborative Multi-Agent Environments (Intra-Enterprise Level) agents’ primary motivation is maximization of their common social welfare  definition: agents’ primary motivation is maximization of their common social welfare  cooperative problem solving based on social commitments (W.&J.)  a-prior willingness to cooperation, common rationality & joint intentions (commitments kept, reconfigured or commonly dropped)  Competitive Multi-Agent Environments (Extra-Enterprise Level) agents’ primary motivation is maximization of their individual utilities (self-interested agents)  definition: agents’ primary motivation is maximization of their individual utilities (self-interested agents)  agents are willing to take on obligations only if rewarded, individual rationality & intentions may result in dropping the commitments  full commitments vs. levelled commitments (decommitments) (S.&L.)  explicit metrics of utility desirable – motivates agents to:  (i) enter commitments (rewards)  (ii) comply with commitments (penalties)

4. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Interaction Protocols  One-to-one/One-to-many/Many-to-many  Monotonic Concession Protocol  n-agent extension of Monotonic Concession Protocol  Extended CNP and derived protocols  FIPA Query/Request Interaction Protocol  FIPA Dutch/English Auction Interaction Protocol Contract NetIterated Contract NetInteraction Protocol  FIPA Contract Net/Iterated Contract Net Interaction Protocol  Limitations of commonly used protocols designed for collaborative environments  usually designed for collaborative environments (although sometimes used inappropriately in competitive environments) do not cover all the contract/commitment life-cycle  usually do not cover all the contract/commitment life-cycle (conclusion, eventual evolution, termination)  lack of (standardized) interaction protocols for deployment in real-world competitive environments

5. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol  FIPA-like, multi-phase, multi-round interaction protocol hybrid state/sequence diagram of C-CNP:

6. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol

7. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol

8. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol

9. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol

10. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol

11. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Competitive Contract Net Protocol

12. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Performatives in C-CNP  Re-defined FIPA Performatives  less significant re-definition (almost FIPA compliant)  CFP, PROPOSE, ACCEPT_PROPOSAL, REJECT_PROPOSAL  more significant re-definition  AGREE: generalized  REFUSE: generalized  CONFIRM: generalized  INFORM (FAILURE): generalized (specialized)  New Performatives  IMPOSE_PROPOSAL  IMPOSE_PROPOSAL: 3 rd -party-info-based contract proposal  COUNTER_PROPOSE  COUNTER_PROPOSE: modified proposal by negotiation initiator  DECOMMIT  DECOMMIT: start of an optional decommitment negotiation  TAKE_BACK  TAKE_BACK: backing off from decommitment negotiation by payer  PROPOSE_PENALTY  PROPOSE_PENALTY: penalty proposal by the receiver (victim)  COUNTER_PROPOSE_PENALTY  COUNTER_PROPOSE_PENALTY: penalty proposal by the payer

13. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Conclusion  Results  interaction protocol C-CNP for flexible cooperation in competitive environments allowing for commitments evolution and contract- conditions-compliance assessment with emphasis on deployment in e-commerce contracting (i.e. complete contract specification expected to be the subject of a multi-attribute negotiation)  implementation of C-CNP in JADE agent platform v3.3, supporting parallel run of multiple C-CNP in one time, multilevel execution and alternative protocol timing mechanism (machine time or externally triggered timer): http://agents.felk.cvut.cz/c-cnp  Future work  extension of the C-CNP protocol for contract re-negotiation (reconfiguration/outsourcing support)  algorithms and iterative approximate acquaintance models for (reconfigurable) contracting allowing for information inaccessibility, limited resources and reputation issues

14. A g e n t T e c h n o l o g y G r o u p Discussion Thank you for your attention! Acknowledgements: This research work is part-funded by the European Commission’s FP6 programme within the projects European Collaborative Networked Organizations Leadership - ECOLEAD (contract NO. 506958) and Collaborative Process Automation Support Intelligent dynamic Agents in SME clusters - PANDA (contract NO. 027169). The research is also part-funded by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic grant No. MSM 6840770013. Any opinions expressed in this presentation are those of the author(s)/organisation and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Community. The Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.