Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 337–367 | Cite as

Compositional Verification of Knowledge-Based Task Models and Problem-Solving Methods

  • Frank Cornelissen
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Article

Abstract.

In this paper a compositional verification method for task models and problem-solving methods for knowledge-based systems is introduced. Required properties of a system are formally verified by deriving them from assumptions that themselves are properties of sub-components, which in their turn may be derived from assumptions on sub-sub-components, and so on. The method is based on properties that are formalized in terms of temporal semantics; both static and dynamic properties are covered. The compositional verification method imposes structure on the verification process. Because of the possibility of focusing at one level of abstraction (information and process hiding), compositional verification provides transparency and limits the complexity per level. Since verification proofs are structured in a compositional manner, they can be reused in the event of reuse of models or modification of an existing system. The method is illustrated for a generic model for diagnostic reasoning.

Keywords

Compositional verification Diagnostic reasoning model Formal compositional modeling Knowledge-based systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi M, Lamport L (1993) Composing specifications, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 15(1):73–132Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alves-Foss J, Levitt K (1991) Verification of secure distributed systems in higher order logic: a modular approach using generic components. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society symposium on research in security and privacy, Oakland, CA, pp 122–135Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angelo CM, Verkest D, Claesen L, De Man H (1993) On the comparison of HOL and Boyer-Moore for formal hardware verification. Formal Methods in System Design 2:45–72Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benjamins R, Fensel D, Straatman R (1996) Assumptions of problem-solving methods and their role in knowledge engineering. In Wahlster W (ed). Proceedings of the 12th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI'96, Wiley, Chichester, pp 408–412Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beusekom F van, Brazier FMT, Schipper P, Treur J (1998) Development of an ecological decision support system. In Pobil AP del, Mira J, Ali M (eds). Tasks and methods in applied artificial intelligence (Proceedings of the 11th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of AI and expert systems, IEA/AIE'98, vol II). Lecture Notes in AI 1416, Springer, Berlin, pp 815–825Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bevier WR, Hunt Jr WA, Moore JS, Young WD (1989) An approach to systems verification. Journal of Automated Reasoning 5:411–428Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyer RS, Kaufmann M, Moore JS (1995) The Boyer-Moore theorem prover and its interactive enhancement (Nqthm). Computers and Mathematics with Applications 29(2):27–62Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brazier FMT, Dunin-Keplicz B, Jennings NR, Treur J (1995) Formal specification of multi-agent systems: a real-world case. In Lesser V (ed). Proceedings of the first international conference on multi-agent systems, ICMAS'95. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 25–32. Extended version in International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 1997; 6:67–94Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brazier FMT, Treur J, Wijngaards NJE (1996) Modelling interaction with experts: the role of a shared task model. In Wahlster W (ed). Proceedings of the 12th European conference on AI, ECAI'96, Wiley, Chichester, pp 241–245Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier FMT, Cornelissen F, Gustavsson R, Jonker CM, Lindeberg O, Polak B, Treur J (1998) Agents Negotiating for Load Balancing of Electricity Use. In Papazoglou M, Takizawa M, Krämer B, Chanson S (eds). Proc. of the 18th Internat. Conf. on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS'98. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998, pp 622–629Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brazier FMT, Jonker CM, Jungen FJ, Treur J (1999a) Distributed scheduling to support a call centre: a co-operative multi-agent approach. Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal 13:65–90Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brazier FMT, Treur J, Wijngaards NJE, Willems M (1999b) Temporal semantics of compositional task models and problem solving Methods. Data and Knowledge Engineering 29(1):17–42. Preliminary version in Gaines BR, Musen MA (eds), Proceedings of the 10th Banff knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems workshop, KAW'96. SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 1996, pp 15/1–15/17Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brazier FMT, Jonker CM, Treur J, Wijngaards NJE (2000) On the use of shared task models in knowledge acquisition, strategic user interaction and clarification agents. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 52:77–110Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bundy A, Giunchiglia F, Villafiorita A, Walsh T (1997) Abstract proof checking: an example motivated by an incompleteness theorem. Journal of Automated Reasoning 19:319–346Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chandrasekaran B (1986) Generic tasks in knowledge-based reasoning: high-level building blocks for expert system design. IEEE Expert 1:23–30Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Console L, Torasso P (1990) Hypothetical reasoning in causal models. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 5:83–124Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Console L, Torasso P (1991) A spectrum of logical definitions of model-based diagnosis. Computational Intelligence 7:133–141Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dastani M, Jonker CM, Treur J (2001) A requirement specification language for configuration dynamics of multi-agent systems. In Wooldridge M, Ciancarini P, Weiss G (eds). Proceedings of the second international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering, AOSE'01. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2222. Springer, 2002, pp 169–187Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engelfriet J, Jonker, CM, Treur J (1999) Compositional verification of multi-agent systems in temporal multi-epistemic logic. In Mueller JP, Singh MP, Rao AS (eds). Intelligent Agents V: Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on agent theories, architectures and languages, ATAL'98. Lecture Notes in AI 1555, Springer, Berline, pp 177–194. Extended version in Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol 11, 2002, pp 195–225Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fensel D (1995) Assumptions and limitations of a problem solving method: a case study. In Gaines BR, Musen MA (eds). Proceedings of the ninth Banff knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems workshop, KAW'95. SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of CalgaryGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fensel D, Benjamins R (1996) Assumptions in model-based diagnosis. In Gaines BR, Musen MA (eds). Proceedings of the 10th Banff knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems workshop, KAW'96. SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, pp 5/1–5/18Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fensel D, Schonegge A, Groenboom R, Wielinga B (1996) Specification and verification of knowledge-based systems. In Gaines BR, Musen MA (eds). Proceedings of the 10th Banff knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems workshop, KAW'96. SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, pp 4/1–4/20Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fisher M (1994) A survey of Concurrent MetateM: the language and its applications. In Gabbay DM, Ohlbach HJ (eds). Temporal logic: Proceedings of the first international conference. Lecture Notes in AI 827, pp 480–505Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher M, Wooldridge M (1997) On the formal specification and verification of multi-agent systems. International Journal of Co-operative Information Systems 6:67–94Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gordon MJC, Melham TF (eds) (1993) Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment for higher order logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harmelen F van, Teije A ten (1997) Validation and verification of diagnostic systems based on their conceptual model. In Proceedings of the fourth European symposium on the validation and verification of knowledge-based Systems, EUROVAV'97Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herlea DE, Jonker CM, Treur J, Wijngaards NJE (1999) Integration of behavioural requirements specification within a knowledge engineering methodology. In Fensel D, Studer R (eds). Knowledge Acquisition, modelling and management (Proceedings of the 11th European workshop on knowledge acquisition, modelling and management, EKAW'99). Lecture Notes in AI 1621, Springer, Berlin, pp 173–190Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoek W van der, Meyer J-JCh, Treur J (1994) Formal semantics of temporal epistemic reflection. In Fribourg L, Turini F (eds). Logic program synthesis and transformation-meta-programming in logic: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on meta-programming in logic, META'94. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 883, Springer, Berlin, pp 332–352Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huet G, Kahn G, Paulin-Mohring C (1997) The Coq Proof Assistant: a tutorial, Version 6.1. Rapport technique No 204, INRIAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jonker CM, Treur J (1998) Compositional verification of multi-agent systems: a formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness. In de Roever WP, Langmaack H, Pnueli A (eds). Proceedings of the international workshop on compositionality, COMPOS'97. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1536, Springer, Berlin, pp 350–380. Extended version in International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol 11, 2002, pp 51–92Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jonker CM, Treur J (1999) A generic process control model and its application to the control of biochemical processes. In Imam I, Kodratoff Y, El-Dessouki A, Ali M (eds). Multiple approaches to intelligent systems (Proceedings of the 12th international conference on industrial and engineering applications of AI and expert systems, IEA/AIE'99). Lecture Notes in AI 1611, Springer, Berlin, pp 296–305. Extended version in Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal 2002; 16:51–71Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jonker CM, Treur J (2001) An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation. In Nebel B (ed). Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on AI, IJCAI'01. Morgan Kaufmann, San Matro, CA, pp 1195–1201Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jonker CM, Vollebregt AM (2000) ICEBERG: exploiting context in information brokering agents. In Klusch M, Kerschberg L (eds). Cooperative information agents IV: Proceedings of the fourth international workshop on cooperative information agents, CIA 2000. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1860, Springer, Berlin, pp 27–38Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leemans NEM, Treur J, Willems M, (2002) A semantical perspective on verification of knowledge. Data and Knowledge Engineering 40:33–70Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Manna Z, Pnueli A (1995) Temporal verification of reactive systems: safety. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCarthy J, Hayes PJ (1969) Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4:463–502Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Melham T (1993) Higher order logic and hardware verification. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 31, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Port RF, Gelder T van (eds) (1995) Mind as motion: explorations in the dynamics of cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rambags PMP (1994) Decomposition and protocols in high-level Petri nets. PhD thesis. Eindhoven UniversityGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reif W (1995) The KIV approach to software engineering. In Broy M, Jänichen S (eds). Methods, languages, and tools for the construction of correct software. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1009, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reiter R (1987) A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artificial Intelligence 32:57–95Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reiter R (1993) Proving properties of states in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence 64:337–351Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schreiber ATh, Akkermans JM, Anjewierden AA, Hoog R de, Shadbolt NR, Velde W van de, Wielinga BJ (2000) Knowledge engineering and management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Treur J (1993) Heuristic reasoning and relative incompleteness. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 8:51–87Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Treur J, Willems M (1994) A logical foundation for verification. In Cohn AG (ed). Proceedings of the 11th European conference on artificial intelligence, ECAI'94. Wiley, Chichester, 745–749Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yoeli M (1990) Formal verification of hardware design. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Cornelissen
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations