Incorporating Infatuation in Multi-Agent Systems

Mirko Maleković; Mirko Čubrilo

doi:10.20965/jaciii.2006.p0517

single-jc.php

« previous

JACIII Vol.10 No.4 pp. 517-521

doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2006.p0517

(2006)

Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 451

Incorporating Infatuation in Multi-Agent Systems

Mirko Maleković, and Mirko Čubrilo

Faculty of Organization and Informatics, University of Zagreb, Pavlinska 2, HR 42000 Varaždin, Hrvatska, Croatia

Received:

September 26, 2005

Accepted:

January 4, 2006

Published:

July 20, 2006

Keywords:

belief operators, infatuation operators, multi-agent systems

Abstract

In this paper we describe incorporating infatuation in multi-agent systems. Modal operators I_i⁺ for infatuation (the focusing on a single attractive or desirable characteristic of another agent and then considering the total agent as that one positive characteristic) and I_i^– for the reverse infatuation (the focusing on a negative characteristic of an agent and then considering the total agent as that one negative characteristic) are defined. Some relationships between the operator I_i⁺ and the logical operators ∧, ∨, and ⇒ are characterized.

Cite this article as:

M. Maleković and M. Čubrilo, “Incorporating Infatuation in Multi-Agent Systems,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.10, No.4, pp. 517-521, 2006.

Data files:

References

[1] R. Fagin, et al., “Reasoning about Knowledge,” The MIT Press, London, 1995.
[2] J. Y. Halpern, and K. O’Neill, “Secrecy in multiagent systems,” Proc. 15th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 32-46, 2002.
[3] J. Y. Halpern, and K. O’Neill, “Anonymity and information hiding in multiagent systems,” Proc. 16th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 75-88, 2003.
[4] H. V. D. Parunak, and J. Odell, “Representing Social Structures in UML for Agent-Oriented Software Engineering,” Proceedings of Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, pp. 17-24, 2001.
[5] H. V. D. Parunak, R. Savit, S. A. Brueckner, and J. Sauter, “Experiments in Indirect Negotiation,” Proceedings of The AAAI Fall 2001 Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 2001.
[6] H. Van Dyke Parunak, S. Brueckner, M. Fleischer, and J. Odell, “Co-X: Defining what Agents Do Together,” AAMAS ’02, Bologna, Italy, July 15-19, 2002.
[7] M. Wooldridge, “An Introduction to Multiagent Systems,” John Willey & Sons, 2002.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

[1] [1] R. Fagin, et al., “Reasoning about Knowledge,” The MIT Press, London, 1995.

[2] [2] J. Y. Halpern, and K. O’Neill, “Secrecy in multiagent systems,” Proc. 15th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 32-46, 2002.

[3] [3] J. Y. Halpern, and K. O’Neill, “Anonymity and information hiding in multiagent systems,” Proc. 16th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, pp. 75-88, 2003.

[4] [4] H. V. D. Parunak, and J. Odell, “Representing Social Structures in UML for Agent-Oriented Software Engineering,” Proceedings of Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, pp. 17-24, 2001.

[5] [5] H. V. D. Parunak, R. Savit, S. A. Brueckner, and J. Sauter, “Experiments in Indirect Negotiation,” Proceedings of The AAAI Fall 2001 Symposium on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, 2001.

[6] [6] H. Van Dyke Parunak, S. Brueckner, M. Fleischer, and J. Odell, “Co-X: Defining what Agents Do Together,” AAMAS ’02, Bologna, Italy, July 15-19, 2002.

[7] [7] M. Wooldridge, “An Introduction to Multiagent Systems,” John Willey & Sons, 2002.