Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

Toolsuite for Implementing Multiagent Systems Based on Communication Protocols

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A protocol-first toolkit claims to let developers verify a multiagent interaction model and then implement agents from that same model, with no ordered or reliable delivery required.

desk verdict A clear, honest tool overview that consolidates the authors' prior IOP work; the main guarantees rest on earlier papers, so treat it as integration and push back on the unbenchmarked performance claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10324 v1 pith:QZZ7DQSF submitted 2025-07-14 cs.MA cs.AIcs.PLcs.SE

Amit K. Chopra , Samuel H. Christie V , Munindar P. Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.MAcs.AIcs.PLcs.SE
keywords Interaction-OrientedProgramminginformationprotocolsBSPLmultiagentsystemsprotocolverificationlivenesssafetyfault-tolerantagents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents a software suite and argues that it makes Interaction-Oriented Programming practical: a developer specifies a multiagent system as an interaction protocol, verifies that protocol for liveness and safety, and then implements role-playing agents against that same verified protocol. The key idea is that information protocols constrain what a sender may send based on information dependencies rather than message ordering, so agents can interact flexibly over unreliable, unordered networks. The paper's strongest assertion is that the model you verify is the model you implement, meaning the verification guarantees carry through to the running system.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the information protocol itself, written in BSPL. Each message declares parameters with adornments: in means the sender's local state must already contain a binding for that parameter, out means the sender must not already have one and sending creates it, and nil means either. The protocol therefore constrains information causality and integrity, not message order. On top of this sits Tango's verification, which reduces the possibly exponential set of enactments to a small set of canonical enactments for checking safety (no parameter gets more than one binding) and liveness (every enactment can extend to completion), and Kiko's adapter, which exposes to the programmer only the locally enabled message forms and handles sending, receiving, and duplicate-checking. Mandrake extends the same idea with application-level retransmission policies for lost messages.

What would settle it

Run Tango's liveness and safety checks and an exhaustive enumeration of all maximal enactments on a small two-role, three-message protocol; if any non-canonical enactment deadlocks or double-binds a parameter while the reduced check reports live and safe, the verified-protocol guarantee is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the combination of information protocols, the Tango verifier, and the Kiko and Mandrake programming models realizes Interaction-Oriented Programming end to end. A developer specifies a protocol in BSPL as information causality and integrity constraints, verifies it with Tango for liveness and safety, and then implements agents using middleware that keeps agents compliant with that protocol. The demonstration uses a purchase scenario where the buyer and seller may send Payment and Shipment concurrently or in either order; Tango reports it live and safe, and a buggy variant is caught with concrete counterexamples. The stated principle is that the model you verify is the model you implement, without assuming ordered or reliable message delivery.

Load-bearing premise

The whole verification pipeline rests on an unproved reduction theorem cited to an earlier paper: that checking a small set of canonical enactments is enough to catch every deadlock or double-binding that could occur in any enactment of the protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a developer verifies a protocol once with Tango and can then trust that any Kiko or Mandrake agent playing its roles will stay within the verified protocol.
  • If the central claim holds, communication can run over unordered, lossy transport such as UDP without violating the protocol's safety or liveness.
  • If the central claim holds, application-level retransmission policies cover faults that lower-level reliable transports cannot, such as an agent that simply never sends an expected message.
  • If the central claim holds, protocols that allow concurrent or alternative message orders are expressible and verifiable, whereas traditional message-ordering protocol languages cannot express them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same canonical-enactment reduction could be applied to higher-level protocol languages such as Langshaw, where protocols are compiled down to BSPL.
  • The paper leaves implicit that commitment specifications could automate fault tolerance: once an agent knows which messages its commitments make important, retransmission policies need not be written by hand.
  • A testable extension would be to combine the protocol adapter with learned decision making: an agent that learns which enabled forms to complete would still be protocol-compliant by construction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a suite of tools for Interaction-Oriented Programming (IOP): Tango, a verifier for BSPL information protocols checking safety and liveness; Kiko, an event-driven agent programming model with an information protocol adapter; Mandrake, a model for fault-tolerant agent policies; and Orpheus, Cupid, and Azorus for cognition and commitments. It illustrates the tools on a Flexible Purchase protocol, showing verification outputs in Listing 2 and a buggy variant in Listing 4, and argues that the approach supports loose coupling, asynchronous messaging over UDP, and decentralized multiagent systems. The central claim is that the approach is formal and that 'the model you verify is the model you implement' (Section 3.5).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the tool suite offers a concrete, publicly available path from formal protocol verification to agent implementation without reliance on ordered or reliable message delivery. The paper's strengths include the public GitLab code, reproducible command-line examples with actual outputs, and the demonstration that a simple flexible protocol is beyond the expressiveness of traditional approaches. The main risk is that the verification guarantee rests on Tango's canonical reduction theorem and Kiko's compliance guarantee, both of which are cited to prior work rather than stated and justified here. The 'vastly improved' performance claim in Section 3.2 lacks benchmarks. These issues are addressable and do not, on the basis of this paper, invalidate the approach.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Listing 2] The claim that the canonical reduction 'leads to vastly improved verification performance compared to earlier verification approaches' is unsupported by any comparative benchmark; the only evidence provided is sub-millisecond elapsed times on a single toy protocol with no baseline. Because this reduction is the mechanism that makes the verification outputs in Listing 2 ('maximal paths: 1') tractable, the paper should either provide a reproducible benchmark against the earlier approach in [67] or substantially weaken the performance claim.
  2. [Section 3.2, Section 3.5] The paper's headline guarantee, 'the model you verify is the model you implement' (Section 3.5), depends on Tango's reduction from all enactments to a canonical set preserving safety and liveness, yet the reduction theorem is only cited to [70] and never stated. The Buggy Flexible Purchase example in Listing 4 shows that safety failures arise from concurrent bindings of a parameter (paid), so a reader needs to know exactly which enactments are merged by the canonical reduction and why the merge preserves such failures. Please state the theorem, its side conditions, and a pointer to the proof in [70].
  3. [Section 6, 'Types' paragraph; Section 3.3, Listing 6] The statement that 'Kiko guarantees an agent's compliance with the protocol—statically, in the case of sequential agents' is load-bearing for the verified-protocol claim, but this paper gives no formal property, proof, or precise reference to where in [26] the guarantee is established. Listing 6's 'check' step is not specified: the paper should state what invariant the adapter enforces (e.g., only enabled forms are emitted, no duplicate bindings, key integrity) and provide a soundness argument or an exact theorem reference.
  4. [Section 3.4, Listing 7] The Mandrake reminder policy in Listing 7 is presented as an agent-level retransmission mechanism, but the paper does not show that such policies preserve protocol safety and liveness. Since the seller's retransmitted Shipment messages are additional emissions, the paper should either prove (or cite a proof) that Mandrake policies are protocol-compliant by construction, or clarify that Mandrake's fault handling operates outside the verified protocol guarantee.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] The phrase 'if a fan skeets' appears to be a typo (likely 'tweets'); please correct it.
  2. [Section 3.3, Listing 6] The comment formatting in Listing 6 is garbled; the rendering should be fixed so that 'ti: di represents a decision maker di with trigger ti' is readable.
  3. [Section 3.3] The code comment '00 17 * * *' and the text '1700 hours every day' should be aligned, and the cron syntax should be briefly explained for readers unfamiliar with cron.
  4. [Table 1] The 'Stable' status for Tango, Kiko, and Mandrake is not accompanied by version numbers or a test suite; adding release versions and commit hashes would strengthen the reproducibility statement.
  5. [Section 7] The reproducibility section says the 'entire codebase referenced in this paper' is available online, but the specific branches or commits for Kiko and Mandrake are not pinned; consider providing a reproducibility artifact with exact commit hashes.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Tango's verified-protocol guarantee rests on a self-cited canonical-enactment reduction.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 3.2 (Tango, Listing 2); Section 3.5 (Reflections)]
    "An important feature of the Tango approach is that it reduces the set of enactments of protocol to a set of canonical enactments and then performs the checking against the set of canonical enactments. ... instead of checking several enactments, we need to check only one of them. ... >bspl verify all_paths ... maximal paths: 12 ... >bspl verify liveness ... {'live': True, 'checked': 7, 'maximal paths': 1} ... Our approach is formal, and our tooling enables implementing a verified protocol. That is, the model you verify is the model you implement."

    Section 3.5's central guarantee that Tango verifies the protocol implemented by Kiko and Mandrake depends on the claim that safety and liveness checked on one canonical enactment (Listing 2 reports 'maximal paths: 1') hold for all 12 enactments reported by all_paths. The paper gives no theorem statement, proof, or independent formalization of this preservation property; the only support is the citation to [70], authored by two of the present authors. Thus the headline 'verified protocol' conclusion is carried by a self-citation rather than derived or independently checked in this paper.

full rationale

The paper is a tool/system description rather than a formal derivation, so most of its content (Kiko's event-driven adapter, Mandrake's forwarding policies, the public GitLab repositories) is not circular in the equation-fitting or renamed-prediction sense. The one genuinely load-bearing step is Tango's canonical-enactment reduction: Listing 2 reports 'maximal paths: 1' for liveness and safety while the all_paths query reports 12 enactments, and the paper asserts that checking the canonical set is sufficient. No proof of this preservation is supplied here; the paper cites only the authors' own prior IJCAI paper [70]. Because Section 3.5's headline claim 'the model you verify is the model you implement' presupposes that Tango's verdicts hold for every enactment, this is a self-citation-borne premise rather than an in-paper derivation. The other claimed benefits—loose coupling, no ordering guarantees, fault-handling policies—are properties of the described middleware and are embodied in the public code, so they are not circular. The score reflects one load-bearing self-citation while acknowledging the tool descriptions themselves retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters and no new postulated entities. It relies on the information-protocol formal model, Tango's canonical reduction theorem, the end-to-end principle, and an asserted adapter compliance guarantee, all taken from prior work or asserted without proof here.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Information protocol semantics: a message may be sent when its in-parameters are bound in local state and its out-parameters are unbound; receptions are idempotent.
    Defines the model used by all tools; introduced in prior work [65,66,67] and assumed without proof in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption Tango's canonical enactment reduction preserves liveness and safety properties for all enactments.
    Relied on in Section 3.2 for the 'checked: 7, maximal paths: 1' outputs; cited to [70], theorem not reproduced here.
  • domain assumption End-to-end principle: lower-layer reliability (e.g., TCP) is inadequate for multiagent systems, so agents must implement fault handling.
    Invoked in Section 3.4 to justify Mandrake's message-forwarding policies and the use of UDP.
  • ad hoc to paper Kiko's adapter enforces protocol compliance, statically for sequential agents.
    Asserted in Section 6 without proof in this paper; it is load-bearing for the 'model you verify is the model you implement' claim.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toolsuite for Implementing Multiagent Systems Based on Communication Protocols." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZZ7DQSF

@misc{pith2026250710324,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toolsuite for Implementing Multiagent Systems Based on Communication Protocols},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZZ7DQSF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10324}
}
read the original abstract

Interaction-Oriented Programming (IOP) is an approach to building a multiagent system by modeling the interactions between its roles via a flexible interaction protocol and implementing agents to realize the interactions of the roles they play in the protocol. In recent years, we have developed an extensive suite of software that enables multiagent system developers to apply IOP. These include tools for efficiently verifying protocols for properties such as liveness and safety and middleware that simplifies the implementation of agents. This paper presents some of that software suite.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10324 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three possible enactments in an ebusiness scenario. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Agent architecture in the Kiko programming model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A possible local state for a buyer agent and the enabled forms in that state. To create a Kiko agent, a developer writes a set of decision makers. A decision maker is an event￾triggered piece of code that gets the set of enabled forms and completes some subset via some logic. The completed forms are emitted by the adapter as messages and added to the local state. Listing 5: A buyer agent’s decision maker that sends … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [70]

    In: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    Singh, M.P., Christie V, S.H.: Tango: Declarative semantics for multiagent communication proto- cols. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). pp. 391–397. IJCAI, Online (Aug 2021). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2021/55

    doi:10.24963/ijcai.2021/55 2021

  2. [67]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Singh, M.P.: Semantics and verification of information-based protocols. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 1149–

    work page

  3. [26]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiA- gent Systems (AAMAS)

    Christie V, S.H., Singh, M.P., Chopra, A.K.: Kiko: Programming agents to enact interaction pro- tocols. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiA- gent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 1154–1163. IF AAMAS, London (May 2023). https://doi.org/10.5555/ 3545946.3598758

    arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1986)

    Agha, G.A.: Actors. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1986). https://doi.org/10.7551/ mitpress/1086.001.0001

    1986

  5. [2]

    In: Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    Agrawal, R., Ajmeri, N., Singh, M.P.: Socially intelligent genetic agents for the emergence of explicit norms. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). pp. 10–16. IJCAI, Vienna (Jul 2022). https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2022/2

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2022/2 2022

  6. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB)

    Attie, P.C., Singh, M.P., Sheth, A.P., Rusinkiewicz, M.: Specifying and enforcing intertask depen- dencies. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB). pp. 134–145. Morgan Kaufmann, Dublin (Aug 1993), http://www.vldb.org/conf/1993/P134.PDF

    work page 1993

  7. [4]

    Clarendon Press, Oxford (1962)

    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1962)

    work page 1962

  8. [5]

    In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A.K., Desai, N., Patti, V., Singh, M.P.: Choice, interoperability, and conformance in interaction protocols and service choreographies. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 843–850. IF AAMAS, Budapest (May 2009). https://doi.org/10.5555/1558109.1558129

    work page arXiv 2009

Show all 81 references
  1. [6]

    In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC)

    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: A priori conformance verification for guaranteeing interoperability in open environments. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4294...

    2006 doi

  2. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the 39th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    Baldoni, M., Christie V, S.H., Singh, M.P., Chopra, A.K.: Orpheus: Engineering multiagent systems via communicating agents. In: Proceedings of the 39th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). pp. 23135–23143. AAAI, Philadelphia (Feb 2025). https://doi.org/10.1609/aa...

    2025 doi

  3. [8]

    Wiley, Chichester, UK (2007)

    Bellifemine, F., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. Wiley, Chichester, UK (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470058411

    2007 doi

  4. [9]

    Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 34(2), 36 (2020)

    Bergenti, F., Caire, G., Monica, S., Poggi, A.: The first twenty years of agent-based software development with JADE. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 34(2), 36 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-020-09460-z

    2020 doi

  5. [10]

    Science of Computer Programming 78(6), 747–761 (Jun 2013)

    Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H., H¨ ubner, J.F., Ricci, A., Santi, A.: Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming 78(6), 747–761 (Jun 2013). https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.scico.2011.10.004

    2013

  6. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI)

    Bordini, R.H., H¨ ubner, J.F.: Semantics for the Jason variant of AgentSpeak (plan failure and some internal actions). In: Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 215, pp. 635–64...

    2010 doi

  7. [12]

    (eds.): Sbis` a on Speech as Action

    Caponetto, L., Labinaz, P. (eds.): Sbis` a on Speech as Action. Philosophers in Depth, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22528-4

    2023 doi

  8. [15]

    In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS)

    Cernuzzi, L., Zambonelli, F.: Experiencing AUML in the GAIA methodology. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS). pp. 283–288. Science and Technology Publications, Lda, Porto, Portugal (Apr 2004). https://doi.org/10.5220/ 0...

    2004

  9. [16]

    TR, University of Maryland Computer Science Department, Baltimore (Apr 1992)

    Chalupsky, H., Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., Shapiro, S., Wiederhold, G.: An overview of KQML: A knowledge query and manipulation language. TR, University of Maryland Computer Science Department, Baltimore (Apr 1992)

    1992

  10. [17]

    ACM Transactions on In- telligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 42(2), 20:1–20:23 (Mar 2013)

    Chopra, A.K., Artikis, A., Bentahar, J., Colombetti, M., Dignum, F., Fornara, N., Jones, A.J.I., Singh, M.P., Yolum, P.: Research directions in agent communication. ACM Transactions on In- telligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 42(2), 20:1–20:23 (Mar 2013). https://doi.org/10...

    2013

  11. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Chopra, A.K., Baldoni, M., Christie V, S.H., Singh, M.P.: Azorus: Commitments over protocols for BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 490–499. IF AAMAS, Detroit (May 2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Chopra, A.K., Christie V, S.H.: Communication meaning: Foundations and directions for systems research. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. pp. 1786–1791. ACM, London (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 69, 1351–1393 (Dec 2020)

    Chopra, A.K., Christie V, S.H., Singh, M.P.: An evaluation of communication protocol languages for engineering multiagent systems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 69, 1351–1393 (Dec 2020). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12212

    2020 doi

  14. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Interna- tional Requirements Engineering Conference (RE)

    Chopra, A.K., Dalpiaz, F., Aydemir, F.B., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J., Singh, M.P.: Protos: Foun- dations for engineering innovative sociotechnical systems. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Interna- tional Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). pp. 53–62. IEEE Computer Soc...

    2014

  15. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Cupid: Commitments in relational algebra. In: Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). pp. 2052–2059. AAAI Press, Austin, Texas (Jan 2015). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9443

    2015 doi

  16. [23]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Custard: Computing norm states over information stores. In: Pro- ceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 1096–1105. IF AAMAS, Singapore (May 2016). https://doi.org/10.5555/2936924. 2937085

    2016 doi

  17. [24]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS)

    Christie V, S.H., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Deserv: Decentralized serverless computing. In: Pro- ceedings of the 19th IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). pp. 51–60. IEEE Computer Society, Virtual (Sep 2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICWS53863.2021.00020

    2021

  18. [25]

    Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 36(1), 16:1–16:30 (Apr 2022)

    Christie V, S.H., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Mandrake: Multiagent systems as a basis for program- ming fault-tolerant decentralized applications. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 36(1), 16:1–16:30 (Apr 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-021-09540-8

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    ACM Transactions on Database Systems 19(3), 450–491 (Sep 1994)

    Chrysanthis, P.K., Ramamritham, K.: Synthesis of extended transaction models using ACTA. ACM Transactions on Database Systems 19(3), 450–491 (Sep 1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/185827. 185843

    1994 doi

  20. [28]

    MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1987)

    Dennett, D.C.: The Intentional Stance. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1987)

    1987

  21. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th International Bi-Conference on Agent-Oriented Information Systems (AOIS)

    Desai, N., Mallya, A.U., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: OWL-P: A methodology for business process development. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Bi-Conference on Agent-Oriented Information Systems (AOIS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3529, pp. 79–94. Springer, Ut...

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    CoRR abs/2408.15247 (Aug 2024)

    Dibia, V., Chen, J., Bansal, G., Syed, S., Fourney, A., Zhu, E., Wang, C., Amershi, S.: Auto- Gen Studio: A no-code developer tool for building and debugging multi-agent systems. CoRR abs/2408.15247 (Aug 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.15247

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS)

    Ferrando, A., Winikoff, M., Cranefield, S., Dignum, F., Mascardi, V.: On enactability of agent in- teraction protocols: Towards a unified approach. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, v...

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management

    Finin, T., Fritzson, R., McKay, D., McEntire, R.: KQML as an agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. pp. 456–463. ACM Press, Gaithersburg, Maryland (Dec 1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/191246.191322

    1994

  25. [33]

    http://www.fipa.org/repository/ aclspecs.html (2002), FIPA: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

    FIPA: FIPA agent communication language specifications. http://www.fipa.org/repository/ aclspecs.html (2002), FIPA: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Accessed 2025-01-20

    2002

  26. [34]

    http://www.fipa.org/repository/ips.html (2003), FIPA: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

    FIPA: FIPA interaction protocol specifications. http://www.fipa.org/repository/ips.html (2003), FIPA: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Accessed 2024-11-24

    2003

  27. [35]

    Future Generation Computer Systems 107, 1105– 1115 (Jun 2020)

    Galland, S., Rodriguez, S., Gaud, N.: Run-time environment for the SARL agent-programming language: The example of the Janus platform. Future Generation Computer Systems 107, 1105– 1115 (Jun 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.10.020

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Artificial Intelligence 47(1–3), 107–138 (Jan 1991)

    Gasser, L.: Social conceptions of knowledge and action: DAI foundations and open systems seman- tics. Artificial Intelligence 47(1–3), 107–138 (Jan 1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91) 90052-L

    1991 doi

  29. [37]

    In: Carruthers and Smith [14], chap

    Harris, P.: Desires, beliefs, and language. In: Carruthers and Smith [14], chap. 13, pp. 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597985

    doi

  30. [38]

    Artificial Intelligence 8(3), 323–364 (Jun 1977)

    Hewitt, C.: Viewing control structures as patterns of passing messages. Artificial Intelligence 8(3), 323–364 (Jun 1977). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(77)90033-9

    1977 doi

  31. [39]

    Artificial Intelligence 47(1–3), 79–106 (Jan 1991)

    Hewitt, C.: Open information systems semantics for distributed artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence 47(1–3), 79–106 (Jan 1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(91)90051-K

    1991 doi

  32. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE)

    Huget, M.P., Odell, J.: Representing agent interaction protocols with agent UML. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3382, pp. 16–30. Springer, New York (Jul 2004). https://doi...

    2004

  33. [41]

    Idris: Idris: A language for type-driven development (Mar 2025), www.idris-lang.org, accessed 2025- 03-05

    2025

  34. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS)

    Khadse, A.K., Christie V, S.H., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Protocol-based engineering of microser- vices. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS). pp. 61–77. No. 14378 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, London (May...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(45), e2405460121 (Oct 2024)

    Kosinski, M.: Evaluating large language models in theory of mind tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(45), e2405460121 (Oct 2024). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2405460121

    2024 doi

  36. [44]

    github.io/langgraph/, accessed 2024-12-05

    LangGraph: LangGraph: Building language agents as graphs (Dec 2024), https://langchain-ai. github.io/langgraph/, accessed 2024-12-05

    2024

  37. [45]

    Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 92(4), 815–835 (2024)

    Lem´ ee, J., Vachtsevanou, D., Mayer, S., Ciortea, A.: Signifiers for conveying and exploiting af- fordances: From human-computer interaction to multi-agent systems. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 92(4), 815–835 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC)

    Lichtenstein, T., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P., Weske, M.: From visual choreographies to flexible information protocols. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC). pp. 354–369. No. 15404 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Spring...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    Meneguzzi, F., Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P.: A first-order formalization of commitments and goals for planning. In: Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). pp. 697–703. AAAI Press, Bellevue, Washington (Jul 2013). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v27i1.8632

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)

    Mozannar, H., Bansal, G., Fourney, A., Horvitz, E.: When to show a suggestion? Integrating human feedback in AI-assisted programming. In: Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). pp. 10137–10144. AAAI Press, Vancouver (Feb 2024). https://doi.o...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Artificial Intelligence 18(1), 87–127 (Jan 1982)

    Newell, A.: The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence 18(1), 87–127 (Jan 1982). https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0004-3702(82)90012-1

    1982 doi

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE 2000)

    Odell, J., Parunak, H.V.D., Bauer, B.: Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE 2000). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1957, pp. 121–140. Springer, Toronto (Jun 2001)...

    doi

  43. [51]

    In: Henderson- Sellers, B., Giorgini, P

    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Prometheus: A practical agent-oriented methodology. In: Henderson- Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Methodologies, chap. 5, pp. 107–135. Idea Group, Hershey, Pennsylvania (2005). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-581-8.ch005

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    In: Proceedings of the In- ternational Federation for Information Processing Congress

    Parnas, D.L.: Information distribution aspects of design methodology. In: Proceedings of the In- ternational Federation for Information Processing Congress. vol. TA-3, pp. 26–30. North Holland, Amsterdam (1971)

    1971

  45. [53]

    IEEE Computer 36(10), 46–52 (Oct 2003)

    Peltz, C.: Web service orchestration and choreography. IEEE Computer 36(10), 46–52 (Oct 2003). https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2003.1236471

    2003 arXiv

  46. [54]

    ACM Transactions on Au- tonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 2(4), 15:1–15:24 (Nov 2007)

    Poslad, S.: Specifying protocols for multi-agent systems interaction. ACM Transactions on Au- tonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS) 2(4), 15:1–15:24 (Nov 2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1293731.1293735

    2007

  47. [55]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512

    Premack, D., Woodruff, G.: Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1(4), 515–526 (Dec 1978). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512

    1978 doi

  48. [56]

    In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages COORDINATION

    Rooney, C., Collier, R.W., O’Hare, G.M.P.: VIPER: A VIsual protocol editoR. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Coordination Models and Languages COORDINATION. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2949, pp. 279–293. Springer, Pisa (Feb 2004). https: //doi...

    2004 doi

  49. [57]

    ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(4), 277–288 (Nov 1984)

    Saltzer, J.H., Reed, D.P., Clark, D.D.: End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2(4), 277–288 (Nov 1984). https://doi.org/10.1145/357401.357402

    1984

  50. [58]

    Pragmatics 17(3), 461–473 (Sep 2007)

    Sbis` a, M.: How to read Austin. Pragmatics 17(3), 461–473 (Sep 2007). https://doi.org/10.1075/ prag.17.3.06sbi

    2007

  51. [59]

    In: Witek, M., Witczak-Plisiecka, I

    Sbis` a, M.: Varieties of speech act norms. In: Witek, M., Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (eds.) Normativity and Variety of Speech Actions, Pozna´ n Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Hu- manities, vol. 112, pp. 23–50. Brill Rodopi, Leiden, Netherlands (2018). https://do...

    2018

  52. [60]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1969)

    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom (1969). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438

    1969 doi

  53. [61]

    Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (1996)

    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    Singh, M.P.: Multiagent Systems: A Theoretical Framework for Intentions, Know-How, and Communications. No. 799 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Heidelberg (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0030531, http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/books/MAS/

    1994 doi

  55. [63]

    IEEE Computer 31(12), 40–47 (Dec 1998)

    Singh, M.P.: Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31(12), 40–47 (Dec 1998)

    1998

  56. [64]

    In: Proceedings of the 1999 IJCAI Workshop on Agent Communication Languages

    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proceedings of the 1999 IJCAI Workshop on Agent Communication Languages. pp. 31–45. No. 1916 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Berlin (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/10722777 3

    2000 doi

  57. [65]

    In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Singh, M.P.: Information-driven interaction-oriented programming: BSPL, the Blindingly Simple Protocol Language. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 491–498. IF AAMAS, Taipei (May 2011). https://doi.org/...

    2011

  58. [66]

    In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS)

    Singh, M.P.: LoST: Local State Transfer—An architectural style for the distributed enactment of business protocols. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS). pp. 57–64. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (Jul 2011). https://doi.org/10....

    2011

  59. [68]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE In- ternational Conference on Services Computing (SCC)

    Singh, M.P.: Bliss: Specifying declarative service protocols. In: Proceedings of the 11th IEEE In- ternational Conference on Services Computing (SCC). pp. 235–242. IEEE Computer Society, An- chorage, Alaska (Jun 2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/SCC.2014.39

    2014 doi

  60. [69]

    In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Programming Multiagent Systems (ProMAS 2009)

    Singh, M.P., Chopra, A.K.: Programming multiagent systems without programming agents. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Programming Multiagent Systems (ProMAS 2009). pp. 1–14. No. 5919 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer (May 2010). https: ...

    2009 doi

  61. [71]

    In: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    Singh, M.P., Christie V, S.H., Chopra, A.K.: Langshaw: Declarative interaction protocols based on sayso and conflict. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). pp. 202–210. IJCAI, Jeju, Korea (Aug 2024). https://doi.org/10.2...

    doi

  62. [72]

    IEEE Expert 9(5), 19–23 (Oct 1994)

    Singh, M.P., Huhns, M.N.: Automating workflows for service order processing: Integrating AI and database technologies. IEEE Expert 9(5), 19–23 (Oct 1994). https://doi.org/10.1109/64.331480

    1994 doi

  63. [73]

    International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 7(2), 79–107 (May 2022)

    Spanoudakis, N.I., Moraitis, P.: The ASEME methodology. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 7(2), 79–107 (May 2022). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAOSE.2022.122600

    2022

  64. [74]

    Nature Human Behaviour 8, 1285–1295 (Jul 2024)

    Strachan, J.W.A., Albergo, D., Borghini, G., Pansardi, O., Scaliti, E., Gupta, S., Saxena, K., Rufo, A., Panzeri, S., Manzi, G., Graziano, M.S.A., Becchio, C.: Testing theory of mind in large language models and humans. Nature Human Behaviour 8, 1285–1295 (Jul 2024). https://d...

    2024

  65. [75]

    Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd edition edn

    Sutton, R.S., Barto, A.G.: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Adaptive Computation and Machine Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd edition edn. (2018)

    2018

  66. [76]

    In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Telang, P.R., Meneguzzi, F., Singh, M.P.: Hierarchical planning about goals and commitments. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 877–884. IF AAMAS, St. Paul, Minnesota (May 2013). https://doi.org/10.5555...

    2013

  67. [77]

    Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAA- MAS) 2(3), 217–236 (Sep 1999)

    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: Enabling open Web-based multiagent systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAA- MAS) 2(3), 217–236 (Sep 1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010056221226

    1999 doi

  68. [78]

    CoRR abs/2405.13966 (May 2024)

    Verma, M., Bhambri, S., Kambhampati, S.: On the brittle foundations of ReAct prompting for agentic large language models. CoRR abs/2405.13966 (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.48550/ ARXIV.2405.13966

    2024 doi arXiv

  69. [79]

    In: Proceedings of the 6th Interna- tional Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS)

    Winikoff, M.: Implementing commitment-based interactions. In: Proceedings of the 6th Interna- tional Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). pp. 868–875. IF AAMAS, Honolulu (May 2007). https://doi.org/10.1145/1329125.1329283

    2007

  70. [80]

    Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 32(1), 59–133 (Jan 2018)

    Winikoff, M., Yadav, N., Padgham, L.: A new Hierarchical Agent Protocol Notation. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 32(1), 59–133 (Jan 2018). https://doi. org/10.1007/s10458-017-9373-9

    2018 doi

  71. [81]

    In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 2001)

    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Commitment machines. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 2001). pp. 235–247. No. 2333 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer, Seattle (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-54...

    2002 doi

  72. [82]

    CoRRabs/2409.03215 (Sep 2024)

    Zhang, J., Lan, T., Zhu, M., Liu, Z., Hoang, T., Kokane, S., Yao, W., Tan, J., Prabhakar, A., Chen, H., Liu, Z., Feng, Y., Awalgaonkar, T.M., Murthy, R., Hu, E., Chen, Z., Xu, R., Niebles, J.C., Heinecke, S., Wang, H., Savarese, S., Xiong, C.: xLAM: A family of large action mo...

    2024 doi arXiv

  73. [1156]

    https://doi.org/10.5555/2343776.2343861

    IF AAMAS, Valencia, Spain (Jun 2012). https://doi.org/10.5555/2343776.2343861

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.