Abstract
Currently, the rigid restrictions on agents with only constrained motivations (corresponding constrained cooperations) cause the high violation rate, low profits and even harm to their reputations without incent motivations in agent mental models, and as a result extremely limit the agent cooperations. To cope with the problems (To incent agents to cooperate with low violation rates and high profits, and to make them more active to cooperate), incent motivations (corresponding incent cooperations) are introduced, 3 kinds of motivations are set forth: the constrained motivations including norm (N), policy (P), and contract (C), the incent motivations including bargain (A), promotion (M), and sticker (S) and the internal motivation desire (D). The NPCAMSD logic of the model is formally depicted, and the semantic, syntax and axiom are analysed. The overcoming of motivation logical omniscience problem is analysed. The two layer motivation conflict resolving method is introduced. The implementation of the model and experiment prove that the mental model has low contract violation rate, high profits in cooperations and works well for the diverse contemporary business cooperations.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amin, N. (2020). Adjusting the framework of multi-agent systems (MAS) and Internet of Things (IoT) for Smart Power Grids[C]. In 16th International Conference, Special Sessions Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 188–191).
Liu, W., Wei, Gu., Sheng, W., et al. (2017). Decentralized multi-agent system-based cooperative frequency control for autonomous microgrids with communication constraints[J]. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 5(2), 446–456.
Yang, H., Han, Q.-L., Ge, X., et al. (2020). Fault-tolerant cooperative control of multiagent systems: A survey of trends and methodologies[J]. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 16(1), 4–17.
Amine, C., Kurosh, M. (2017). Adaptive motivation system under modular reinforcement learning for agent decision-making modeling of biological regulation[C]. ICCCI: Computational Collective Intelligence, pp. 32–42.
Katy, I.G., Zahra, A., Casey, D., et al. (2020). Mental models of ai agents in a cooperative game setting[C]. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 28–32).
Bratman, M. E. (1987). Intention, plans, and practical reason[M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rao, A.S.,Georgeff, M. P. (1991) Modeling rational agents within a bdi-architecture[C]. In Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (pp. 473–484). San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment[J]. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3), 213–261.
Konolige, K.,Pollack, M.E. (1993). A representationalist theory of intention[C]. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 390–395).
Hu, S.-L., & Shi, C.-Y. (2006). An improved twin-Subset semantic model for intention of Agent[J]. Journal of Software, 17(003), 396–402.
Hu, S.-L., & Shi, C.-Y. (2000). Agent-BDI logic[J]. Journal of Software, 11(10), 1353–1360.
Kang, X.-Q., & Shi, C.-Y. (1999). Multi-agent interaction based on BDI[J]. Chinese Journal of Computers, 22(11), 1166–1171.
Wang, H., Deng, A.. (2013). Non-revision reasoning with inconsistent ontology[C]. In 10th International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery, (pp. 616–620).
Xu, J.-H., Zhang, W., Lu, H.-M., et al. (2001). an implementing mechanism of agent with personality[J]. Journal of Computer Research and Development, 38(6), 648–652.
Dignum, F., Kinny, D., & Sonenberg, L. (2002). From desires, obligations and norms to goals[J]. Congitive Science Quarterly, 2(3–4), 407–430.
Tufiş, M., Ganascia, J.-G. (2017). A normative extension for the BDI agent model[C]. In 17th International Conference on Climbing and Walking Robots and the Support Technologies for Mobile Machines, (pp. 693–703).
Broersen, J., Dastani, M., van der Torre, L. (2003). Bdio-ctl: Obligations and the specification of agent behavior[C]. In Proceedings of IJCAI2003, (pp. 1389–1390).
Liao, B.-S., & Gao, J. (2006). Dynamic self-organizing system supported by PDC-agent[J]. Journal of Computeraided Design & Computer Graphics, 18(002), 217–224.
Paier, M., Dünser, M., Scherngell, T., Martin, S. (2017). Knowledge creation and research policy in science-based industries: An empirical agent-based model[C]. Innovation Networks for Regional Development, pp. 153–183.
Freund, C. (2017). Interactions of Macroprudential and Monetary Policy in an Agent-Based Model of the Housing Market[D]. Kiel: University of Kiel.
Fernando, P.S. (2017). Social norms of cooperation in multiagent systems[C]. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, (pp. 1859–1860).
Hoffenson, S. (2017). Sustainability policy-making as a dynamic, agent-based system of systems[C]. In 12th System of Systems Engineering Conference (SoSE), (pp. 1–6).
Li, J.-X., Mao, X.-J., & Shu, Y. (2007). An object-oriented design model of software agent[J]. Journal of Software, 18(3), 582–591.
Boutilier, C. (1994). Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory[C]. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (pp. 75–86).
Cholvy, L., & Garion, C. (2001). An attempt to adapt a logic of conditional preferences for reasoning with contrary-to-duties[J]. Fundamenta Informaticae, 48(2), 183–204.
Dignum, V. (2004). A model for organizational interaction: Based on agents, founded in logic[D]. Utrecht: Utrecht university.
Peng, Y.-B., Liao, B.-S., Gao, J., et al. (2008). Extended Agent mental state model——NPCD-Agent. Journal of Zhejiang University Engineering Science, 42(5), 768–773.
**g, W., Wei, L., Shuang, L. (2018). Agent collaboration in intelligent parking lot systems: dynamic generation of commitment protocol[C]. In International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing, Applications and Technologies (PDCAT), (pp. 437–444).
Zhang, Q., Durfee, E. H., & Singh, S. (2020). Semantics and algorithms for trustworthy commitment achievement under model uncertainty[J]. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 34(1), 29–33.
Zhang, Q., Durfee, E.H., Singh, S. (2018). Challenges in the trustworthy pursuit of maintenance commitments under uncertainty[C]. In Proceedings of the 20th International Trust Workshop Co-located with AAMAS/IJCAI/ECAI/ICML, (pp. 75–86).
Zhou, Y.-M., & Gu, H.-M. (2017). Cooperative manufacturing and assembling supported by CRQAOVTMAgent in open environment[J]. Acta Automatica Sinica, 44(07), 1333–1344.
Skovgaard-Olsen, N. (2017). The problem of logical omniscience, the preface paradox, and doxastic commitments[J]. Synthese, 194(3), 917–939.
Alonso, B., & Alonso, B. (2017). Omniscience and Semantic Information[J]. Manuscrito, 40(4), 77–96.
Davidsson, P., Jacobsson, A. (2007). Aligning models of normative systems and artificial societies: Towards norm-governed behavior in virtual enterprises[C]. Normative Multi-agent Systems, pp. 1–12.
Zhang, J., & Cohen, R. (2007). An incentive mechanism for eliciting fair ratings of sellers in e-marketplaces[C] //Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 1–3). Honolulu, Hawaii: ACM.
Acknowledgement
This work is supported by National Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province of China, Grant No: LY20F030002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhou, Ym. NPCAMSD-agent: a prospective agent model. Telecommun Syst 77, 283–296 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-021-00755-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11235-021-00755-4