pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.26156 · v1 · pith:CRA72Y7Gnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 💻 cs.MA

Kiko: Programming Agents to Enact Interaction Protocols

Samuel H. Christie V , Munindar P. Singh , Amit K. Chopra This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 01:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.MA
keywords multiagent systemsinteraction protocolsagent programmingoperational semanticsprotocol compliancedecentralized decisionsprogramming models
0
0 comments X

The pith

Kiko lets programmers implement agents via decision makers that select mutually compatible actions from a protocol, proving compliance and full enactment of any protocol.

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

The paper presents Kiko as a programming model for agents that separates internal decision logic from protocol interactions. A programmer supplies decision makers that pick from valid actions at each step while ensuring the choices on messages remain compatible with each other. This abstracts away the communication layer entirely. Operational semantics are given to show that any such agent stays within protocol rules and that every possible protocol behavior can be produced by some choice of decision makers. The approach matters because it lets developers concentrate on business decisions without manually managing message flows or risking protocol violations.

Core claim

Kiko is a protocol-based programming model for agents in which a programmer writes one or more decision makers, each of which chooses from among a set of valid decisions and makes mutually compatible decisions on what messages to send. By completely abstracting away the underlying communication service and by supporting practical decision-making patterns, Kiko enables agent developers to focus on business logic. The model is equipped with an operational semantics that establishes Kiko agents are protocol compliant and able to realize any protocol enactment.

What carries the argument

Decision makers, each selecting from valid protocol actions while guaranteeing mutual compatibility across message choices.

If this is right

  • Any agent coded in Kiko will remain protocol compliant throughout execution.
  • Every possible enactment permitted by a protocol can be produced by some Kiko agent.
  • Programmers need not handle communication primitives or message ordering themselves.
  • Decision logic can be written independently for each agent without reference to the communication service.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Kiko could reduce errors in multiagent applications by making protocol adherence a built-in property rather than a manual check.
  • Tool support for generating or verifying decision makers might become feasible once the operational semantics are implemented in a concrete language.
  • The separation of decision making from communication might extend to other distributed systems that rely on prescribed interaction patterns.

Load-bearing premise

A programmer can always write decision makers that produce mutually compatible decisions from the valid protocol actions available at each step.

What would settle it

A concrete protocol for which no collection of decision makers can produce compatible choices at some reachable state, so that at least one allowed enactment cannot be realized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26156 by Amit K. Chopra, Munindar P. Singh, Samuel H. Christie V.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The Kiko agent architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: blows up the adapter from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Notation and core semantics. Decide2 𝑄 := enabled(𝑎, 𝐻𝑎) 𝑇 := 𝑑 (𝑄) compatible𝑜® (𝑇 ,𝑇 ) compatible𝑛® (𝑇 ,𝑇 ) 𝑎⟨𝐻𝑎, 𝐼𝑎,𝑂𝑎⟩ −→ 𝑎⟨𝐻𝑎 ∪𝑇 , 𝐼𝑎,𝑂𝑎 ∪𝑇 ⟩ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Optimized decision that checks for internal consis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Realizing a multiagent system involves implementing member agents who interact based on a protocol while making decisions in a decentralized manner. Current programming models for agents offer poor abstractions for decision making and fail to adequately bridge an agent's internal decision logic with its public decisions. We present Kiko, a protocol-based programming model for agents. To implement an agent, a programmer writes one or more decision makers, each of which chooses from among a set of valid decisions and makes mutually compatible decisions on what messages to send. By completely abstracting away the underlying communication service and by supporting practical decision-making patterns, Kiko enables agent developers to focus on business logic. We provide an operational semantics for Kiko and establish that Kiko agents are protocol compliant and able to realize any protocol enactment.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Kiko, a protocol-based programming model for multi-agent systems. To implement an agent, a programmer supplies one or more decision makers, each of which selects from the set of valid protocol actions at each step while ensuring that the chosen decisions remain mutually compatible. The model completely abstracts the underlying communication service. The authors supply an operational semantics for Kiko and claim to prove both that Kiko agents are protocol compliant and that they are able to realize any protocol enactment.

Significance. If the proofs are complete, the work supplies a clean abstraction layer that lets agent developers concentrate on business logic rather than message transport or protocol bookkeeping. The explicit operational semantics and the two stated theorems (compliance and realizability) constitute a concrete technical contribution that could be reused by subsequent protocol-verification or agent-programming efforts.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract / §4] Abstract and §4 (realizability theorem): the claim that Kiko agents can realize any protocol enactment rests on the unstated assumption that, for every protocol, a programmer can always supply decision makers whose outputs remain mutually compatible at each step. No general construction, existence theorem, or proof that such compatible decision makers exist for arbitrary (including history-dependent or interdependent) protocols is supplied; without it the universal realizability result does not follow from the operational semantics alone.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'practical decision-making patterns' supported by Kiko; an explicit enumeration or reference to the relevant subsection would help readers locate them.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying this important point about the realizability claim. We address the comment below and will revise the manuscript to clarify the statement.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §4] Abstract and §4 (realizability theorem): the claim that Kiko agents can realize any protocol enactment rests on the unstated assumption that, for every protocol, a programmer can always supply decision makers whose outputs remain mutually compatible at each step. No general construction, existence theorem, or proof that such compatible decision makers exist for arbitrary (including history-dependent or interdependent) protocols is supplied; without it the universal realizability result does not follow from the operational semantics alone.

    Authors: We agree that the realizability result stated in the abstract and §4 relies on the assumption that, for a given protocol, the programmer can supply decision makers whose outputs are mutually compatible at each step. The operational semantics establishes that any protocol enactment can be realized (and compliance is guaranteed) precisely when such compatible decision makers are provided; it does not itself prove existence of the decision makers. Our contribution centers on the programming model and its semantics rather than on a general synthesis procedure for decision makers. For many protocols, including history-dependent ones, compatible decision makers can be realized by maintaining appropriate local state in each decision maker or by using a single decision maker that coordinates the choices. We will revise the abstract and §4 to state the assumption explicitly and to qualify the realizability theorem as holding conditional on the provision of compatible decision makers. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims derived from newly defined operational semantics

full rationale

The paper introduces Kiko via a new operational semantics and derives protocol compliance plus realizability directly from that semantics. No steps reduce by construction to prior fitted values, self-citations, or self-definitional loops; the decision-maker compatibility assumption is an explicit modeling premise rather than a hidden tautology. The derivation is self-contained in the formalization and does not rely on load-bearing prior author results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The contribution rests on the definition of decision makers as the core abstraction and on the assumption that any protocol can be realized by suitable decision makers; no numeric parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Protocols are given as sets of valid message sequences with associated decision points.
    The model presupposes that interaction protocols can be expressed in a form that admits a clear notion of valid decisions at each step.
  • domain assumption Decision makers can be written to select only valid and mutually compatible actions.
    The realizability claim depends on the existence of such decision makers for every protocol.
invented entities (1)
  • Decision maker no independent evidence
    purpose: Component that chooses valid protocol actions while ensuring compatibility across simultaneous decisions.
    This is the central new abstraction introduced by the model; no independent evidence outside the paper is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5659 in / 1496 out tokens · 16813 ms · 2026-06-26T01:21:09.939869+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/1086.001.0001 1986

  2. [2]

    Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Federico Capuzzimati, and Roberto Micalizio

  3. [3]

    Journal on Data Semantics8, 2 (June 2019), 99–112

    Process Coordination with Business Artifacts and Multiagent Technologies. Journal on Data Semantics8, 2 (June 2019), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13740- 019-00100-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s13740- 2019

  4. [4]

    Chopra, Nirmit Desai, Viviana Patti, and Munindar P

    Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Amit K. Chopra, Nirmit Desai, Viviana Patti, and Munindar P. Singh. 2009. Choice, Interoperability, and Conformance in Interaction Protocols and Service Choreographies. InProceedings of the 8th In- ternational Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, Budapest, 843–850. https://doi.org/10.5...

    work page doi:10.5555/1558109.1558129 2009

  5. [5]

    Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Roberto Micalizio, and Stefano Tedeschi. 2021. Robustness Based on Accountability in Multiagent Organizations. InProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, Online, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.5555/3461017.3461040

    work page doi:10.5555/3461017.3461040 2021

  6. [6]

    2007.Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE

    Fabio Bellifemine, Giovanni Caire, and Dominic Greenwood. 2007.Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. Wiley, Chichester, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470058411

    2007

  7. [7]

    Federico Bergenti, Giovanni Caire, Stefania Monica, and Agostino Poggi. 2020. The First Twenty Years of Agent-Based Software Development with JADE.Jour- nal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS)34, 2 (2020), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-020-09460-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s10458-020-09460-z 2020

  8. [8]

    Physiological noise and signal-to-noise ratio in fMRI with multi-channel array coils

    Olivier Boissier, Rafael H. Bordini, Jomi Fred Hübner, Alessandro Ricci, and Andrea Santi. 2013. Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo.Science of Computer Programming78, 6 (June 2013), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. scico.2011.10.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2013

  9. [9]

    Bordini and Jomi Fred Hübner

    Rafael H. Bordini and Jomi Fred Hübner. 2010. Semantics for the Jason Variant of AgentSpeak (Plan Failure and some Internal Actions). InProceedings of the 19th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Vol. 215). IOS Press, Lisbon, 635–640. https://doi. org/10.3233/978-1-60750-606-5-635

    work page doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-606-5-635 2010

  10. [10]

    Luca Cernuzzi, Thomas Juan, Leon Sterling, and Franco Zambonelli. 2004. The Gaia Methodology. InMethodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems: The Agent-Oriented Software Engineering Handbook, Federico Bergenti, Marie- Pierre Gleizes, and Franco Zambonelli (Eds.). Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, Vol. 11. K...

    work page doi:10.1007/1-4020-8058-1_6 2004

  11. [11]

    Chopra, Alexander Artikis, Jamal Bentahar, Marco Colombetti, Frank Dignum, Nicoletta Fornara, Andrew J

    Amit K. Chopra, Alexander Artikis, Jamal Bentahar, Marco Colombetti, Frank Dignum, Nicoletta Fornara, Andrew J. I. Jones, Munindar P. Singh, and Pınar Yolum. 2013. Research Directions in Agent Communication.ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)42, 2, Article 20 (March 2013), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2438653.2438655

    work page doi:10.1145/2438653.2438655 2013

  12. [12]

    Chopra, Samuel H

    Amit K. Chopra, Samuel H. Christie V, and Munindar P. Singh. 2020. An Evalu- ation of Communication Protocol Languages for Engineering Multiagent Sys- tems.Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR)69 (Dec. 2020), 1351–1393. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.12212

    work page doi:10.1613/jair.1.12212 2020

  13. [13]

    Christie V, Amit K

    Samuel H. Christie V, Amit K. Chopra, and Munindar P. Singh. 2021. Bungie: Improving Fault Tolerance via Extensible Application-Level Protocols.IEEE Computer54, 5 (May 2021), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2021.3052147

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2021.3052147 2021

  14. [14]

    Christie V, Amit K

    Samuel H. Christie V, Amit K. Chopra, and Munindar P. Singh. 2022. Mandrake: Multiagent Systems as a Basis for Programming Fault-Tolerant Decentralized Applications.Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 36, 1, Article 16 (April 2022), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-021-09540- 8

    work page doi:10.1007/s10458-021-09540- 2022

  15. [15]

    Christie V, Daria Smirnova, Amit K

    Samuel H. Christie V, Daria Smirnova, Amit K. Chopra, and Munindar P. Singh

  16. [16]

    2020), 60–68

    Protocols Over Things: A Decentralized Programming Model for the Internet of Things.IEEE Computer53, 12 (Dec. 2020), 60–68. https://doi.org/10. 1109/MC.2020.3023887

    arXiv 2020

  17. [18]

    Mallya, Amit K

    Nirmit Desai, Ashok U. Mallya, Amit K. Chopra, and Munindar P. Singh. 2005. Interaction Protocols as Design Abstractions for Business Processes.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering31, 12 (Dec. 2005), 1015–1027. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2005.140

    work page doi:10.1109/tse.2005.140 2005

  18. [19]

    Nirmit Desai and Munindar P. Singh. 2008. On the Enactability of Business Protocols. InProceedings of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, Chicago, 1126–1131. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/2008/ aaai08-178.php

    2008

  19. [20]

    Angelo Ferrando, Michael Winikoff, Stephen Cranefield, Frank Dignum, and Viviana Mascardi. 2019. On Enactability of Agent Interaction Protocols: Towards a Unified Approach. InProceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Engineer- ing Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 12058). Springer, Montréal, 43–64. https://doi.org/...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-51417-4_3 2019

  20. [21]

    FIPA. 2003. FIPA Interaction Protocol Specifications. http://www.fipa.org/ repository/ips.html FIPA: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents. Ac- cessed 2023-02-27

    2003

  21. [22]

    Stéphane Galland, Sebastian Rodriguez, and Nicolas Gaud. 2020. Run-time En- vironment for the SARL Agent-Programming Language: The Example of the Janus platform.Future Generation Computer Systems107 (June 2020), 1105–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.10.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.10.020 2020

  22. [23]

    Akin Günay and Amit K. Chopra. 2018. Stellar: A Programming Model for Developing Protocol-Compliant Agents. InProceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems (EMAS) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11375). Springer, Stockholm, 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-25693-7_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3- 2018

  23. [24]

    Akın Günay, Michael Winikoff, and Pınar Yolum. 2015. Dynamically Generated Commitment Protocols in Open Systems.Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS)29, 2 (March 2015), 192–229. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10458-014-9251-7

    2015

  24. [25]

    Carl Hewitt, Peter Bishop, and Richard Steiger. 1973. A Universal Modular Actor Formalism for Artificial Intelligence. InProceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). William Kaufmann, Stanford, 235–245. http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/73/Papers/027B.pdf

    1973

  25. [26]

    Kohei Honda, Nobuko Yoshida, and Marco Carbone. 2008. Multiparty Asynchro- nous Session Types. InProceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, San Francisco, 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1145/1328438.1328472

    work page doi:10.1145/1328438.1328472 2008

  26. [27]

    Huhns, Nigel Jacobs, Tomasz Ksiezyk, Wei-Min Shen, Munindar P

    Michael N. Huhns, Nigel Jacobs, Tomasz Ksiezyk, Wei-Min Shen, Munindar P. Singh, and Philip E. Cannata. 1992. Enterprise Information Modeling and Model Integration in Carnot. InEnterprise Integration Modeling: Proceedings of the First International Conference, Charles J. Petrie, Jr. (Ed.). MIT Press, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 290–299. https://doi.org/1...

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/2768.003.0036 1992

  27. [28]

    Chopra, and Munindar P

    Thomas Christopher King, Akın Günay, Amit K. Chopra, and Munindar P. Singh

  28. [29]

    In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)

    Tosca: Operationalizing Commitments over Information Protocols. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI). IJCAI, Melbourne, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/37

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/37 2017

  29. [30]

    Narasayya

    Rodrigo N. Laigner, Yongluan Zhou, Marcos Antonio Vaz Salles, Yijian Liu, and Marcos Kalinowski. 2021. Data Management in Microservices: State of the Prac- tice, Challenges, and Research Directions.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 14, 13 (Sept. 2021), 3348–3361. https://doi.org/10.14778/3484224.3484232

    work page doi:10.14778/3484224.3484232 2021

  30. [31]

    Mark Little. 2017. Virtual Panel: Microservices in Practice. https://www.infoq. com/articles/microservices-in-practice/. Accessed: 1 Mar 2023

    2017

  31. [32]

    Nipkow, L

    James Odell, H. Van Dyke Parunak, and Bernhard Bauer. 2001. Representing Agent Interaction Protocols in UML. InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE 2000) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1957). Springer, Toronto, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540- 44564-1_8

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540- 2001

  32. [33]

    Lin Padgham and Michael Winikoff. 2005. Prometheus: A Practical Agent- Oriented Methodology. InAgent-Oriented Methodologies, Brian Henderson-Sellers and Paolo Giorgini (Eds.). Idea Group, Hershey, Pennsylvania, Chapter 5, 107–135. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-581-8.ch005

    work page doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-581-8.ch005 2005

  33. [34]

    Jeremy Pitt, Julia Schaumeier, and Alexander Artikis. 2012. Axiomatization of Socio-Economic Principles for Self-Organizing Institutions: Concepts, Experi- ments and Challenges.ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems (TAAS)7, 4, Article 39 (Dec. 2012), 39 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2382570. 2382575

    work page doi:10.1145/2382570 2012

  34. [35]

    ACM Trans

    Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. 1984. End-To-End Argu- ments in System Design.ACM Transactions on Computer Systems2, 4 (Nov. 1984), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1145/357401.357402

    work page doi:10.1145/357401.357402 1984

  35. [36]

    Munindar P. Singh. 1996. Synthesizing Distributed Constrained Events from Transactional Workflow Specifications. InProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, New Orleans, 616–623. https: //doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.1996.492212

    work page doi:10.1109/icde.1996.492212 1996

  36. [37]

    Munindar P. Singh. 1998. Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles.IEEE Computer31, 12 (Dec. 1998), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/2. 735849

    work page doi:10.1109/2 1998

  37. [38]

    Munindar P. Singh. 1998. A Customizable Coordination Service for Autonomous Agents. InIntelligent Agents IV: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-97) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1365). Springer, Providence, Rhode Island, 93–106. https://doi.org/10. 1007/BFb0026752

    1998

  38. [39]

    Munindar P. Singh. 2011. Information-Driven Interaction-Oriented Program- ming: BSPL, the Blindingly Simple Protocol Language. InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, Taipei, 491–498. https://doi.org/10.5555/2031678.2031687

    work page doi:10.5555/2031678.2031687 2011

  39. [40]

    Munindar P. Singh. 2013. Norms as a Basis for Governing Sociotechnical Systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)5, 1, Article 21 (Dec. 2013), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2542182.2542203

    work page doi:10.1145/2542182.2542203 2013

  40. [41]

    Singh and Amit K

    Munindar P. Singh and Amit K. Chopra. 2020. Clouseau: Generating Commu- nication Protocols from Commitments. InProceedings of the 34th Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI). AAAI Press, New York, 7244–7252. https: //doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6215

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6215 2020

  41. [42]

    Benjamin Smith. 2021. Getting started with serverless for developers: Part 2 - The business logic. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/getting-started-with- serverless-for-developers-part-2-the-business-logic/. Accessed: 1 Mar 2023

    2021

  42. [43]

    Danny Weyns, Andrea Omicini, and James Odell. 2007. Environment as a First Class Abstraction in Multiagent Systems.Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi- Agent Systems (JAAMAS)14, 1 (Feb. 2007), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458- 006-0012-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s10458- 2007

  43. [44]

    Michael Winikoff. 2007. Implementing Commitment-Based Interactions. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS). IFAAMAS, Honolulu, 868–875. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1329125.1329283

    arXiv 2007

  44. [45]

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

    work page doi:10.1007/s10458-017-9373-9 2018