Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DECAF - A Flexible Multi Agent System Architecture

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The first wave of agent implementation toolkits focussed mostly on providing APIs for agent communication. We believe that new toolkits should focus on the public dissemination of complete agent architectures that provide significant value over building software agents from scratch. DECAF (Distributed, Environment Centered Agent Framework) is a software toolkit for the rapid design, development, and execution of “intelligent” agents to achieve solutions in complex software systems. DECAF is based on the premise that execution of the actions required to accomplish a task specified by an agent program is similar to a traditional operating system executing a sequence of user requests. In the same fashion that an operating system provides an environment for the execution of a user request, an agent framework provides the needed environment for the execution of agent actions. The agent environment includes the ability to communicate with other agents, efficiently maintain the current state of an executing agent, and select an execution path from a set of possible execution paths so as to support persistent, flexible, and robust actions.

From a research community perspective, DECAF provides a modular platform for evaluating and disseminating results in agent architectures, including communication, planning, action scheduling, execution monitoring, coordination, and learning. By modularizing the design of the software, researchers can attack and analyze specific issues in agent development, coordination and planning without disturbing other parts of the architecture.

From a user/programmer perspective, DECAF distinguishes itself by removing the focus from the underlying components of agent building such as socket creation, agent communication, and efficient implementation of complex architectural details. Instead, users may quickly prototype agent systems by focusing on the domain-specific parts of the problem via a graphical plan editor, reusable generic behaviors, and various supporting middle-agents.

This article discusses the high level architecture of DECAF long with comparisons to operating systems architecture and other agent frameworks; descriptions of supporting middle agents and development tools; and an analysis of projects already developed using DECAF and some performance benchmarks from DECAF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Bach, Design of the UNIX Operating System, Prentice-Hall, 1986.

  2. T. Barrett, G. Coen, J. Hirsh, L. Obrst, J. Spering, and A. Trainer, “MADEsmart: An integrated design environment,” ASME Design for Manufacturing Symposium, 1997.

  3. R. Bonasso, D. Kortenkamp, and T. Whitney, “Using a robot control architecture to aoutomate space shuttle operation,” in Proceeding of the Ninth Conference on Innovative Applications of AI, 1997.

  4. A. H. Bond and L. Gasser, (eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.

  5. R. A. Brooks, “A robust layered control system for a mobile robot,” IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. RA-2, no.1, pp. 14–23, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. R. Cohen and H. J. Levesque, “Intention is choice with commitment,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 42, no.3, pp. 213–261, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  7. K. S. Decker, “Distributed problem solving: A survey,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 17, no.5, pp. 729–740, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. K. S. Decker and V. R. Lesser, “Quantitative modeling of complex computational task environments,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, pp. 217–224, 1993.

  9. K. S. Decker and V. R. Lesser, “Designing a family of coordination algorithms,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. San Francisco, Longer version available as UMass CS-TR 94– 14, pp. 73–80, 1995.

  10. K. S. Decker, A. Pannu, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson, “Designing behaviors for information agents,” in Proceedings of the 1st Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents, Marina del Rey, pp. 404–413, 1997a.

  11. K. S. Decker and K. Sycara, “Intelligent adaptive information agents,” Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, vol. 9, no.3, pp. 239–260, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. S. Decker, K. Sycara, and M. Williamson, “Middle-agents for the internet,” in Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Nagoya, Japan, pp. 578–583, 1997b.

  13. K. S. Decker, X. Zheng, and C. Schmidt, “A multi-agent system for automated genetic annotation,” in Proceedings of the 5th Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, pp. 433–440, 2001.

  14. K. S. Decker, S. Khan, C. Schmidt, and D. Michaud, “Extending a multi-agent system for genomic annotation,” in M. Klusch and F. Zambonelli, (eds.), Cooperative Information Agents, V. LNAI #2182, Springer, pp. 106–117, 2001.

  15. E. Durfee and T. Montgomery, “MICE: A flexible testbed for intelligent coordination experiments,” in Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop on Distributed AI, Rosario, Washington, 1989.

  16. K. Erol, J. Hendler, and D. Nau, “Semantics for hierarchical task network planning,” CS Technical Report TR-3239, University of Maryland, 1994.

  17. I. A. Ferguson, “TouringMachines: An architecture for dynamic, rational, mobile agents,” Technical Report 273, Univeristy of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. J. Firby, Task Networks for Controlling Continuous Processes, Seattle, WA, 1996.

  19. M. Fisher, “Introduction to concurrent MetateM,” 1996.

  20. A. Garvey, M. Humphrey, and V. Lesser, “Task interdependencies in design-to-time real-time scheduling,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, pp. 580–585, 1993.

  21. L. Gasser, “Social conceptions of knowledge and action,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 47, no.1, pp. 107–138, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  22. L. Gasser, “Agent and concurrent objects,” An interview by Jean-Pierre Briot in IEEE Concurrency, 1998.

  23. J. R. Graham and K. S. Decker, “Towards a distributed, environment-centered agent framework,” in N. Jennings and Y. Lespérance, (eds.), Intelligent Agents VI — Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-99), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1757, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 290–304, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. R. Graham, “Real-time scheduling in multi-agent systems,” PhD. thesis, University of Delaware, 2001.

  25. B. Grosz and S. Kraus, “Collaborative plans for group activities,” in Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Chambéry, France, 1993.

  26. T. Harvey and K. Decker, “Planning ahead to provide scheduler choice,” in Proc. Workshop on Infrastructure for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems, 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 105–113, May 2001.

  27. F. Hayes-Roth, L. Erman, S. Fouse, J. Lark, and J. Davidson, “ABE: A cooperative operating system and development environment,” in A. H. Bond and L. Gasser, (eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 457–490, 1988.

  28. B. Horling, V. Lesser, R. Vincent, A. Bazzan, and P. Xuan, “Diagnosis as an integral part of multi-agent adaptability,” Tech Report CS-TR-99-03, UMass, 1999.

  29. D. Kuokka and L. Harada, “On using KQML for matchmaking,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, AAAI Press, pp. 239–245, 1995.

  30. T. W. Malone and K. Crowston, “Toward an interdisciplinary theory of coordination,” Center for Coordination Science Technical Report 120, MIT Sloan School of Management, 1991.

  31. F. McGeary and K. Decker, “Modeling a virtual food court using DECAF,” in S. Moss and P. Davidsson, (eds.), Multi-Agent Based Simulation, LNAI #1979, Springer, pp. 68–81, 2001.

  32. F. McGeary and K. Decker, “DECAF programming: Agents for undergraduates,” in Proc. Workshop on Infrastructure for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems, 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 53–60, May 2001.

  33. J. Muller and M. Pischel, “Modelling interacting agents in dynamic environments,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 709–713, 1994.

  34. I. Muslea, S. Minton, and C. Knobloch, “STALKER: Learning expectation rules for semistructured webbased information sources,” Papers from the 1998 workshop on ai and information gathering. Technical report ws-98-14, University of Southern California, 1998.

  35. J. P. Charles, “Agent-based engineering, the web, and intelligence,” IEEE Expert, December, 1996.

  36. O. F. Rana and K. Stout, “What is scalability in multi-agent systems?,” in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 56–69, 2000.

  37. A. Rao and M. Georgeff, “BDI agents: From theory to practice,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, San Francisco, pp. 312–319, 1995.

  38. J. S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin, Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers, MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  39. S. Russell and E. Wefald, Do the Right Thing: Studies in Limited Rationality, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R. Simmons, “Becoming increasingly reliable,” 1996.

  41. L. Spector, J. Hendler, and M. P. Evett, “Knowledge representation in PARKA,” Technical Report CS-TR-2410, University of Maryland, 1990.

  42. K. Sycara, K. S. Decker, A. Pannu, M. Williamson, and D. Zeng, “Distributed intelligent agents,” IEEE Expert, vol. 11, no.6, pp. 36–46, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  43. T. Wagner, A. Garvey, and V. Lesser, “Complex goal criteria and its application in design-to-criteria scheduling,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Providence, 1997.

  44. T. Wagner, A. Garvey, and V. Lesser, “Criteria-directed task scheduling,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Special Issue on Scheduling, vol. 19, nos.1 – 2, pp. 91–118, 1998 (A version also available as UMASS CS TR-97-59).

    Google Scholar 

  45. M. Williamson, K. S. Decker, and K. Sycara, “Executing decision-theoretic plans in multi-agent environments,” in AAAI Fall Symposium on Plan Execution, AAAI Report FS-96-01, 1996a.

  46. M. Williamson, K. S. Decker, and K. Sycara, “Unified information and control flow in hierarchical task networks,” in Proceedings of the AAAI-96 workshop on Theories of Planning, Action, and Control, 1996b.

  47. M. Wooldridge and N. Jennings, Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice, The Knowledge Engineering Review, vol. 10, no.2, pp. 115–152, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Coastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, 29582, USA

    John R. Graham

  2. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

    Keith S. Decker & Michael Mersic

Authors
  1. John R. Graham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith S. Decker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Mersic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Graham, J.R., Decker, K.S. & Mersic, M. DECAF - A Flexible Multi Agent System Architecture. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7, 7–27 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024120703127

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024120703127

Search

Navigation