We introduce and formalize a concept of a maintenance commitment, a kind of social commitment characterized by states whose truthhood an agent commits to maintain. This concept of maintenance commitments enables us to capture a richer variety of real-world scenarios than possible using achievement commitments with a temporal condition. By developing a rule-based operational semantics, we study the relationship between agents' achievement and maintenance goals, achievement commitments, and maintenance commitments. We motivate a notion of coherence which captures alignment between an agents' achievement and maintenance cognitive and social constructs, and prove that, under specified conditions, the goals and commitments of both rational agents individually and of a multiagent system are coherent.

Commitments capture how an agent relates to another agent, whereas goals describe states of the world that an agent is motivated to bring about. Commitments are elements of the social state of a set of agents whereas goals are elements of the private states of individual agents. It makes intuitive sense that goals and commitments are understood as being complementary to each other. More importantly, an agent's goals and commitments ought to be coherent, in the sense that an agent's goals would lead it to adopt or modify relevant commitments and an agent's commitments would lead it to adopt or modify relevant goals. However, despite the intuitive naturalness of the above connections, they have not been adequately studied in a formal framework. This article provides a combined operational semantics for goals and commitments by relating their respective life cycles as a basis for how these concepts (1) cohere for an individual agent and (2) engender cooperation among agents. Our semantics yields important desirable properties of convergence of the configurations of cooperating agents, thereby delineating some theoretically well-founded yet practical modes of cooperation in a multiagent system.

This article addresses the challenge of planning coordinated activities for a set of autonomous agents, who coordinate according to social commitments among themselves. We develop a multi-agent plan in the form of a commitment protocol that allows the agents to coordinate in a flexible manner, retaining their autonomy in terms of the goals they adopt so long as their actions adhere to the commitments they have made. We consider an expressive first-order setting with probabilistic uncertainty over action outcomes. We contribute the first practical means to derive protocol enactments which maximise expected utility from the point of view of one agent. Our work makes two main contributions. First, we show how Hierarchical Task Network planning can be used to enact a previous semantics for commitment and goal alignment, and we extend that semantics in order to enact first-order commitment protocols. Second, supposing a cooperative setting, we introduce uncertainty in order to capture the reality that an agent does not know for certain that its partners will successfully act on their part of the commitment protocol. Altogether, we employ hierarchical planning techniques to check whether a commitment protocol can be enacted efficiently, and generate protocol enactments under a variety of conditions. The resulting protocol enactments can be optimised either for the expected reward or the probability of a successful execution of the protocol. We illustrate our approach on a real-world healthcare scenario.

This paper reports on an ongoing interdisciplinary study of analytic workflow, describing our preliminary understanding and findings as well as some directions for further investigation and validation. Specifically, we exploit knowledge from organizational psychology to develop a computational organizational model. Our proposed organizational model provides a framework to understand the impact of organizational level variables and worker characteristics on workflow performance, providing a view to create justifiable interventions to improve performance. To evaluate the viability of the model, we develop a multiagent simulation framework and design an experimental study.

A stakeholder's beliefs influence his or her goals. However, a stakeholder's beliefs may not be consistent with the goals of all stakeholders of a system being constructed. Such belief-goal inconsistencies could manifest themselves as conflicting goals of the system to be. We propose Arg-ACH, a novel approach for capturing inconsistencies between stakeholders' goals and beliefs, and resolving goal conflicts. Arg-ACH employs a hybrid of (1) the analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH), a structured analytic technique, for systematically eliciting stakeholders' goals and beliefs, and (2) rational argumentation for determining belief-goal inconsistencies to resolve conflicts. Arg-ACH treats conflicting goals as hypotheses that compete with each other and the winning hypothesis as a goal of the system to be. Arg-ACH systematically captures the trail of a requirements engineer's thought process in resolving conflicts. We evaluated Arg-ACH via a study in which 20 subjects applied Arg-ACH or ACH to resolve goal conflicts in a sociotechnical system concerning national security. We found that Arg-ACH is superior to ACH with respect to completeness and coverage of belief search; length of belief chaining; ease of use; explicitness of the assumptions made; and repeatability of conclusions across subjects. Not surprisingly, Arg-ACH required more time than ACH: although this is justified by improvements in quality, the gap could be reduced through better tooling.

Commitments help model interactions in multiagent systems in a computationally realizable yet high-level manner without compromising the autonomy and heterogeneity of the member agents. Recent work shows how to combine commitments with goals and apply planning methods to enable agents to determine their actions. However, previous approaches to modeling commitments are confined to propositional representations, which limits their applicability in practical cases. We propose a first-order representation and reasoning technique that accommodates templatic commitments and goals that may be applied repeatedly with differing bindings for domain objects. Doing so not only leads to a more perspicuous modeling, but also supports many practical patterns.

Cross-organizational business processes are routine in today's economy. Of necessity, enterprises conduct their business in cooperation to create products and services for the marketplace. Thus business processes inherently involve autonomous partners with heterogeneous software designs and implementations. Therefore, it would be natural to model such processes via high-level abstractions that reflect the contractual relationships among the business partners. Yet, in today's IT practice, cross-organizational processes are modeled at a low level of abstraction in terms of the control and data flow among the participants. This paper makes the following contributions. First, it proposes a simple, yet expressive, declarative way to specify business models at a high level based on the notion of commitments. Second, it shows how such a high-level model maps to a conventional operational model. Third, it provides a basis for verifying the correctness of the operational representations with respect to the declarative business model using existing temporal model checking tools. This paper validates the above claims using the well-known Quote To Cash business process, e.g., as supported by vendors such as SAP and applied in large enterprises. In this manner, this paper helps bridge the gap between high-level business models and their IT realizations.