CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 117Multi-Agent Systems and NegotiationLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 311 of the 392 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Logic-based technologies for multi-agent systems: a systematic literature review

Open access
Calegari, Roberta, Ciatto, Giovanni, Mascardi, Viviana, Omicini, Andrea·2021·Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
DOI 10.1007/s10458-020-09478-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Precisely when the success of artificial intelligence (AI) sub-symbolic techniques makes them be identified with the whole AI by many non-computer-scientists and non-technical media, symbolic approaches are getting more and more attention as those that could make AI amenable to human understanding. Given the recurring cycles in the AI history, we expect that a revamp of technologies often tagged as “classical AI”—in particular, logic-based ones—will take place in the next few years. On the other hand, agents and multi-agent systems (MAS) have been at the core of the design of intelligent systems since their very beginning, and their long-term connection with logic-based technologies , which characterised their early days, might open new ways to engineer explainable intelligent systems . This is why understanding the current status of logic-based technologies for MAS is nowadays of paramount importance. Accordingly, this paper aims at providing a comprehensive view of those technologies by making them the subject of a systematic literature review (SLR). The resulting technologies are discussed and evaluated from two different perspectives: the MAS and the logic-based ones.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10458-020-09478-3

Cites

311 of 311 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 63

  1. Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D., Patel-Schneider, P., & Nardi, D. (Eds.). (2003). The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Baldoni, M., & Endriss, U. (Eds.). (2006). Declarative agent languages and technologies IV, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4327). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11961536. · DOI
  3. Baldoni, M., Endriss, U., Omicini, A., & Torroni, P. (Eds.). (2005). Declarative agent languages and technologies III, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3904). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11691792. · DOI
  4. Baldoni, M., Son, T. C., van Riemsdijk, B. M., & Winikoff, M. (Eds.). (2008). Declarative agent languages and technologies VI, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5397). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-93920-7. · DOI
  5. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., & Marengo, E. (2010). Constraints among commitments: Regulative specification of interaction protocols. In W. Faber, & N. Leone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Italian conference on computational logic, Rende, Italy, July 7–9, 2010, CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 598). https://CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-598/paper04.pdf.
  6. Bryant, R. E. (1986). Graph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 35(8), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1109/TC.1986.1676819. · DOI
  7. Cattell, R. G. G., & Barry, D. K. (Eds.). (2000). The object data standard: ODMG 3.0. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  8. Chandy, K. M. (1988). Parallel program design: A foundation. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc.
  9. Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal logic: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621192. · DOI
  10. Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2009). Verifying a-priori the composition of declarative specified services. In M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, J. Bentahar, G. Boella, M. Cossentino, M. Dastani, et al. (Eds.), Multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations—Second international federated workshops, MALLOW’009, workshops proceedings, Turin, Italy (Vol. 494, pp. 14–21). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-494/.
  11. Ciampolini, A., Lamma, E., Mello, P., & Torroni, P. (1999). The dynamic composition of abductive agents in ALIAS. In A. Brogi & P. Hill (Eds.), 2nd International workshop on component-based software development in computational logic (COCL’99), Paris, France. http://www.di.unipi.it/~brogi/ResearchActivity/COCL99/proceedings/ciampolini.ps.
  12. Clark, K., Hengst, B., Pagnucco, M., Rajaratnam, D., Robinson, P., Sammut, C., et al. (2016). A framework for integrating symbolic and sub-symbolic representations. In S. Kambhampati (Ed.), 25th International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-16) (pp. 2486–2492). IJCAI/AAAI Press. http://www.ijcai.org/Abstract/16/354.
  13. Collier, R. W. (2002). Agent factory: A framework for the engineering of agent-oriented applications. PhD thesis, University College Dublin.
  14. da Silva, D. M., & Vieira, R. (2007). Argonaut: Integrating Jason and Jena for context aware computing based on OWL ontologies. In Workshop on agents, web services, and ontologies—Integrated methodologies (AWESOME’007), Durham, UK (p. 19).
  15. de Boer, F. S., Hindriks, K. V., van der Hoek, W., & Meyer, J. J. C. (2007). A verification framework for agent programming with declarative goals. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(2), 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2005.12.014. · DOI
  16. Dennis, L. A., & Farwer, B. (2008). Gwendolen: A BDI language for verifiable agents. In B. Löwe (Ed.), AISB 2008 Symposium on logic and the simulation of interaction and reasoning (Vol. 9, pp. 16–23). Aberdeen: The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, University of Aberdeen.
  17. Di Stefano, A., & Santoro, C. (2003). eXAT: An experimental tool for programming multi-agent systems in erlang. In G. Armano, F. D. Paoli, A. Omicini, & E. Vargiu (Eds.), WOA 2003—Dagli oggetti agli agenti: sistemi intelligenti e computazione pervasiva, Pitagora Editrice Bologna, Villasimius, CA (pp. 121–127).
  18. Dix, J., Leite, J., Governatori, G., & Jamroga, W. (Eds.). (2010). Computational logic in multi-agent systems, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6245). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14977-1. · DOI
  19. Erol, K., Hendler, J. A., & Nau, D. S. (1994). HTN planning: Complexity and expressivity. In B. Hayes-Roth & R. E. Korf (Eds.), 12th National conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 1123–1128). Seattle, WA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1994/aaai94-173.php.
  20. Finger, M., Fisher, M., & Owens, R. (1993). MetateM at work: Modelling reactive systems using executable temporal logic. In Sixth international conference on industrial and engineering applications of artificial intelligence and expert systems. Edinburgh: Gordon and Breach Publishers.
  21. Fukuta, N., Ito, T., & Shintani, T. (2000). MiLog: A mobile agent framework for implementing intelligent information agents with logic programming. In Pacific Rim international workshop on intelligent information agents (pp. 113–123).
  22. Gabbay, D. (1987). Modal and temporal logic programming. In A. Galton (Ed.), Temporal logics and their applications (pp. 197–237). New York: Academic Press Professional, Inc. https://doi.org/10.5555/42251.42257. · DOI
  23. Garcia, A. J., & Simari, G. R. (2004). Defeasible logic programming: An argumentative approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 4(2), 95–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068403001674. · DOI
  24. Garcia-Serrano, A., Vioque, D. T., Carbone, F., & Mendez, V. (2003). FIPA-compliant MAS development for road traffic management with a knowledge-based approach: The TRACK-R agents. In Challenges open agent systems workshop, Melbourne, Australia.
  25. Håkansson, A., Nguyen, N. T., Hartung, R. L., Howlett, R. J., & Jain, L. C. (Eds.). (2009). Agent and multi-agent systems: Technologies and applications, Lecture notes in computer science, 3rd KES international symposium, KES-AMSTA 2009, Uppsala, Sweden, June 3–5, 2009. Proceedings (Vol. 5559). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01665-3. · DOI
  26. Halaç, T. G., Çetin, Ö., Ekinci, E. E., Erdur, R. C., & Dikenelli, O. (2009). Executing agent plans by reducing to workflows. In M. Baldoni, C. Baroglio, J. Bentahar, G. Boella, M. Cossentino, M. Dastani, et al. (Eds.), 2nd Multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations federated workshops (Vol. 494). http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-494/ladspaper10.pdf.
  27. Henz, M., Smolka, G., & Würtz, J. (1993). Oz—A programming language for multi-agent systems. In R. Bajcsy (Ed.), 13th International joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 404–409). Chambéry: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
  28. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Cochrane book series. New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Hill, E. F. (2003). Jess in action: Java rule-based systems. Greenwich, CT: Manning Publications Co.
  30. Hjelmblom, M. (2008). Deontic action-logic multi-agent systems in Prolog. Tech. Rep. 30, Uppsala University, this report is originally a thesis work for degree of Master of Science in Computer Science at Uppsala University. The thesis was written and presented under the author’s former name, Magnus Blom.
  31. Hluchý, L., Laclavik, M., Balogh, Z., & Babik, M. (2006). Agentowl: Semantic knowledge model and agent architecture. Computers and Artificial Intelligence, 25(5), 421–439.
  32. Howden, N., Rönnquist, R., Hodgson, A., & Lucas, A. (2001). JACK intelligent agents—Summary of an agent infrastructure. In 2nd International workshop on infrastructure for agents, MAS, and scalable MAS.
  33. Inoue, K., Satohand, F., & Toni, K. (Eds.). (2006). Computational logic in multi-agent systems, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 4371). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69619-3. · DOI
  34. Kakas, A. C., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1992). Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(6), 719–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/2.6.719. · DOI
  35. Kowalski, R. A. (1995). Logical foundations for multi-agent systems. In M. Alpuente & M. I. Sessa (Eds.), Conference on declarative programming, GULP-PRODE’95, Marina di Vietri, Italy (pp. 39–40).
  36. Lange, D. B., & Mitsuru, O. (1998). Programming and deploying Java Mobile Agents Aglets. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
  37. Leite, J. A., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., & Yolum, P. (Eds.). (2005). Declarative agent languages and technologies II, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3476). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b136890. · DOI
  38. Leite, J. A., Son, T. C., Torroni, P., van der Torre, L., & Woltran, S. (Eds.). (2013). Computational logic in multi-agent systems, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 8143). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40624-9. · DOI
  39. Lillis, D., & Collier, R. W. (2010). ACRE: Agent communication reasoning engine. In O. Boissier, A. E. Fallah-Seghrouchni, S. Hassas, & N. Maudet (Eds.), Proceedings of the multi-agent logics, languages, and organisations federated workshops (MALLOW 2010), CEUR workshop proceedings (Vol. 627). https://CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-627/lads_1.pdf.
  40. Lützenberger, M., Küster, T., & Konnerth, T. (2013). JIAC V—A MAS framework for industrial applications. In International conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, IFAAMAS (pp. 1189–1190). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2485136.
  41. Martelli, M., Mascardi, V., & Zini, F. (1999). Specification and simulation of multi-agent systems in caselp. In M. C. Meo & M. V. Ferro (Eds.), Conference on declarative programming, AGP’99, L’Aquila (pp. 13–28).
  42. Mascardi, V., Demergasso, D., & Ancona, D. (2005). Languages for programming BDI-style agents: An overview. In 6th Workshop “From objects to agents” (WOA 2005) (Vol. 2005, pp. 9–15).
  43. Metakides, G., & Nerode, A. (1996). Foreword. In Studies in computer science and artificial intelligence (Vol. 13, pp. vii–ix). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-3542(96)80008-9. · DOI
  44. Motomura, S., Kawamura, T., & Sugahara, K. (2005). Maglog: A mobile agent framework for distributed models. In 17th IASTED PDCS international conference, Phoenix, AZ, USA (pp. 414–420). http://www.actapress.com/Abstract.aspx?paperId=22336.
  45. Nau, D., Cao, Y., Lotem, A., & Munoz-Avila, H. (1999). SHOP: Simple hierarchical ordered planner. In 16th International joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 1999) (Vol. 2, pp. 968–973). Stockholm: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/1999-2.
  46. Niewiadomski, A., Penczek, W., & Szreter, M. (2004). VerICS 2004: A model checker for real time and multi-agent systems. In International workshop on concurrency, specification and programming (CS&P’04) (Vol. 170, pp. 88–99). Humboldt-Univeristaet, Berlino, Informatik-Berichte.
  47. Nilsson, N. J. (2001). Teleo-reactive programs and the triple-tower architecture. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 5(B), 99–110.
  48. Orgun, B., Dras, M., Cassidy, S., & Nayak, A. (2005). DASMAS: Dialogue based automation of semantic interoperability in multi agent systems. In T. Meyer & M. A. Orgun. (Eds.), Australasian ontology workshop (Vol. 58, pp. 75–82). Sydney: Australian Computer Society, Inc.
  49. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Asymmetry thesis and side-effect problems in linear-time and branching-time intention logics. In J. Mylopoulos & R. Reiter (Eds.), 12th International joint conference on artificial intelligence. Sydney, Australia, August 24–30, 1991 (pp. 498–505). Morgan Kaufmann. http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/91-1/Papers/077.pdf.
  50. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In J. F. Allen, R. Fikes, & E. Sandewall (Eds.), 2nd International conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR’91) (pp. 473–484). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. https://doi.org/10.5555/3087158.3087205. · DOI
  51. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1993). A model-theoretic approach to the verification of situated reasoning systems. In R. Bajcsy (Ed.), 13th International joint conference on artificial intelligence. Chambéry, France, August 28–September 3, 1993 (pp. 318–324). Morgan Kaufmann. http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/93-1/Papers/045.pdf.
  52. Roy, P. V., & Haridi, S. (1999). Mozart: A programming system for agent applications. In D. De Schreye (Ed.), International workshop on distributed and internet programming with logic and constraint languages, MIT Press, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, Roy Van Peter, Haridi Seif, Skarmeas Nikolaos, Clark L. Keith, Maamar Zakaria and Brueckner A. Sven, part of International conference on logic programming (ICLP’99).
  53. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education International. http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/1,4096,0137903952,00.html.
  54. Sadri, F., & Satoh, K. (Eds.). (2007). Computational logic in multi-agent systems, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5056). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88833-8. · DOI
  55. Shoham, Y. (1991). AGENT0: A simple agent language and its interpreter. In T. L. Dean & K. R. McKeown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th national conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 704–709). AAAI Press/The MIT Press. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/1991/aaai91-110.php.
  56. Šišlák, D., Volf, P., Kopřiva, Š., & Pěchouček, M. (2008). AGENTFLY: A multi-agent airspace test-bed (demo paper). In 7th International joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, ACM, Estoril, Portugal (pp. 1665–1666). http://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas08/proceedings/pdf/demo/AAMAS08_demo5.pdf.
  57. Snook, C., Butler, M., Edmunds, A., & Johnson, I. (2004). Rigorous development of reusable, domain-specific components, for complex applications. In J. Jurgens & R. France (Eds.), 3rd International workshop on critical systems development with UML, Lisbon, Portugal (pp. 115–129).
  58. Sycara, K., Lu, J., Klusch, M., & Widoff, S. (1999). Matchmaking among heterogeneous agents on the Internet. In AAAI spring symposium on intelligent agents in Cyberspace (pp. 22–24).
  59. Tarau, P. (1998). Jinni: A lightweight java-based logic engine for Internet programming. In K. Sagonas (Ed.), International workshop on implementation technology for programming languages based on logic, Manchester, UK (pp. 1–15).
  60. Toni, F. (2006). Multi-agent systems in computational logic: Challenges and outcomes of the SOCS project. In Toni and Torroni [340] (pp. 420–426). https://doi.org/10.1007/11750734_26. · DOI
  61. Toni, F., & Torroni, P. (Eds.). (2005). Computational logic in multi-agent systems, Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 3900). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11750734. · DOI
  62. Wielemaker, J., Schrijvers, T., Triska, M., & Lager, T. (2012). SWI-Prolog. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, 12(1–2), 67–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068411000494. · DOI
  63. Yen, J., Yin, J., Ioerger, T. R., Miller, M. S., Xu, D., & Volz, R. A. (2001). CAST: Collaborative agents for simulating teamwork. In B. Nebel (Ed.), 7th International joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1135–1144). Seattle, WA: Morgan Kaufmann. http://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1642194.1642247. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 117

Metadata

Authors
Calegari, R., Ciatto, G., Mascardi, V., & Omicini, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • University of Genoa (IT)
Corresponding author
  • Calegari, Roberta
  • Ciatto, Giovanni
  • Mascardi, Viviana
  • Omicini, Andrea
ORCID
Venue
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-10-19
Volume
35
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1387-2532 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7454
DOI
10.1007/s10458-020-09478-3
OpenAlex
W3093365097
Cited by
117
References
392
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
multi-agent systems, symbolic AI, knowledge representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review