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.

This paper describes the enactment of a simulated (mock) accident involving an upper-body exoskeleton and its investigation. The accident scenario is enacted by role-playing volunteers, one of whom is wearing the exoskeleton. Following the mock accident, investigators - also volunteers - interview both the subject of the accident and relevant witnesses. The investigators then consider the witness testimony alongside robot data logged by the ethical black box, in order to address the three key questions: what happened?, why did it happen?, and how can we make changes to prevent the accident happening again? This simulated accident scenario is one of a series we have run as part of the RoboTIPS project, with the overall aim of developing and testing both processes and technologies to support social robot accident investigation.

We present a participatory design method to design human-robot interactions with older adults and its application through a case study of designing an assistive robot for a senior living facility. The method, called Situated Participatory Design (sPD), was designed considering the challenges of working with older adults and involves three phases that enable designing and testing use scenarios through realistic, iterative interactions with the robot. In design sessions with nine residents and three caregivers, we uncovered a number of insights about sPD that help us understand its benefits and limitations. For example, we observed how designs evolved through iterative interactions and how early exposure to the robot helped participants consider using the robot in their daily life. With sPD, we aim to help future researchers to increase and deepen the participation of older adults in designing assistive technologies.

Executing workflows on volunteer computing resources where individual tasks may be forced to relinquish their resource for the resource's primary use leads to unpredictability and often significantly increases execution time. Task replication is one approach that can ameliorate this challenge. This comes at the expense of a potentially significant increase in system load and energy consumption. We propose the use of Reinforcement Learning (RL) such that a system may `learn' the `best' number of replicas to run to increase the number of workflows which complete promptly whilst minimising the additional workload on the system when replicas are not beneficial. We show, through simulation, that we can save 34% of the energy consumption using RL compared to a fixed number of replicas with only a 4% decrease in workflows achieving a pre-defined overhead bound.

Communication protocols are central to engineering decentralized multiagent systems. Modern protocol languages are typically formal and address aspects of decentralization, such as asynchrony. However, modern languages differ in important ways in their basic abstractions and operational assumptions. This diversity makes a comparative evaluation of protocol languages a challenging task. We contribute a rich evaluation of diverse and modern protocol languages. Among the selected languages, Scribble is based on session types; Trace-C and Trace-F on trace expressions; HAPN on hierarchical state machines, and BSPL on information causality. Our contribution is four-fold. One, we contribute important criteria for evaluating protocol languages. Two, for each criterion, we compare the languages on the basis of whether they are able to specify elementary protocols that go to the heart of the criterion. Three, for each language, we map our findings to a canonical architecture style for multiagent systems, highlighting where the languages depart from the architecture. Four, we identify design principles for protocol languages as guidance for future research.

The theory is that the law should deal with like situations in like ways. The theory is that the law should deal with like situations in like ways. In some respects, however, Artificial Intelligence, especially the concept of machine learning, is virtually unprecedented, so the law is struggling with how to deal with it, or will be soon. Consider a few of the difficulties that the law will probably need to address: Who will pay for healthcare services dependent on AI, and who will be entitled to such payments? Will those payments be keyed to "value," the currently orthodox yardstick?

The tech race between China and the U.S. has reached a fever pitch in recent months. The two countries not only have the world's two most robust economies, they're also home to some of the world's most innovative companies. Google, Amazon, Apple and others have long been considered stalwarts in innovation and have changed the world with their technologies, while companies like Alibaba, Huawei and Tencent continually shift our attention to China. When it comes to tech, China has pulled ahead of the U.S. in many areas like artificial intelligence (AI) as well as in the number of investments made by its major tech companies. The U.S, meanwhile, is doing everything it can to regain the lead where it's lost ground and push further ahead where it's already leading.

As nearly every day brings additional news about how artificial intelligence (AI) will affect the way we live, a heated debate has broken out over what the United States should do about it. On the one hand, the likes of Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking argue that we must regulate now to slow down and develop general principles governing AI's development because of its potential to cause massive economic dislocation and even destroy human civilization. On the other hand, AI advocates argue that there is no consensus on what AI is, let alone what it can ultimately do. Regulating AI in such circumstances, these advocates claim, will simply stifle innovation and cede to other countries the technological initiative that has done so much to power the U.S. economy. The intense focus on these foundational questions threatens to obscure, however, a key point: AI is already subject to regulation in many ways, and, even while the broader debates about AI continue, additional regulations look sure to follow.

Out of nearly 70,000 bills introduced in the U.S. Congress from 2001 to 2015, only 2,513 were enacted. We developed a machine learning approach to forecasting the probability that any bill will become law. Starting in 2001 with the 107th Congress, we trained models on data from previous Congresses, predicted all bills in the current Congress, and repeated until the 113th Congress served as the test. For prediction we scored each sentence of a bill with a language model that embeds legislative vocabulary into a high-dimensional, semantic-laden vector space. This language representation enables our investigation into which words increase the probability of enactment for any topic. To test the relative importance of text and context, we compared the text model to a context-only model that uses variables such as whether the bill's sponsor is in the majority party. To test the effect of changes to bills after their introduction on our ability to predict their final outcome, we compared using the bill text and meta-data available at the time of introduction with using the most recent data. At the time of introduction context-only predictions outperform text-only, and with the newest data text-only outperforms context-only. Combining text and context always performs best. We conducted a global sensitivity analysis on the combined model to determine important variables predicting enactment.

We consider the design and enactment of multiagent protocols that describe collaboration using "normative" or "social" abstractions, specifically, commitments. A (multiagent) protocol defines the relevant social states and how they progress; each participant maintains a local projection of these states and acts accordingly. Protocols expose two important challenges: (1) how to compose them in a way that respects commitments and (2) how to verify the compliance of the parties with the social states. Individually, these challenges are inadequately studied and together not at all. We motivate the notion of a social context to capture how a protocol may be enacted. A protocol can be verifiably enacted when its participants can determine each other's compliance. We first show the negative result that even when protocols can be verifiably enacted in respective social contexts, their composition cannot be verifiably enacted in the composition of those social contexts. We next show how to expand such a protocol so that it can be verifiably enacted. Our approach involves design rules to specify composite protocols so they would be verifiably enactable. Our approach demonstrates a use of dialectical commitments, which have previously been overlooked in the protocols literature.