Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 185–219 | Cite as

A Verification Framework for Agent Communication

  • Rogier M. Van Eijk
  • Frank S. De Boer
  • Wiebe Van Der Hoek
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a verification method for the correctness of multiagent systems as described in the framework of ACPL (Agent Communication Programming Language). The computational model of ACPL consists of an integration of the two different paradigms of CCP (Concurrent Constraint Programming) and CSP (Communicating Sequential Processes). The constraint programming techniques are used to represent and process information, whereas the communication mechanism of ACPL is described in terms of the synchronous handshaking mechanism of CSP. Consequently, we show how to define a verification method for ACPL in terms of an integration of the verification methods for CCP and CSP. We prove formally the soundness of the method and discuss its completeness.

agent communication semantics verification methods specification agent communication language multi-agent systems 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K. Apt and N. Francez, “Modeling the distributed termination convention of CSP, ” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 6, no.3, pp. 370–379, 1984.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Apt, N. Francez, and W. d. Roever, “A proof system for communicating sequential processes, ” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 2, no.3, pp. 359–385, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Bergstra and J. Klop, “Process algebra for synchronous communication, ” Information and Control, vol. 60, pp. 109–137, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Bergstra, J. Klop, and E.-R. Olderog, “Readies and failures in the algebra of communicating processes, ” SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 17, pp. 1134–1177, 1988.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Beun, “On the generation of coherent dialogue: A computational approach, ” Pragmatics and Cognition, vol. 9, no.1, pp. 37–68, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. d. Boer, R. v. Eijk, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “Failure semantics for the exchange of information in multi-agent systems, ” in C. Palamidessi (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 2000), vol. 1877 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 214–228.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. d. Boer, M. Gabbrielli, E. Marchiori, and C. Palamidessi, “Proving concurrent constraint programs correct, ” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 19, no.5, pp. 685–725, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. d. Boer, A. D. Pierro, and C. Palamidessi, “Infinite computations in nondeterministic constraint programming, ” Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 151, pp. 37–78, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, N. Jennings, and J. Treur, “Formal specification of multi-agent systems: a real-world case, ” in Proceedings of International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS'95), MIT Press, 1995, pp. 25–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Bretier and D. Sadek, “A rational agent as the kernel of a cooperative spoken dialogue system: Implementing a logical theory of interaction, ” in J. Müller, M. Wooldridge, and N. Jennings (eds.), Intelligent Agents III·Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL'96), vol. 1193 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1997, pp. 189–203.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Cohen and H. Levesque, “Communicative actions for artificial agents, ” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS'95), MIT Press, 1995, pp. 65–72Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. Dijkstra, A Discipline of Programming, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. v. Eijk, F. d. Boer, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “Systems of communicating agents, ” in H. Prade (ed.), Proceedings of the 13th Biennial European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'98), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK, 1998, pp. 293–297.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. v. Eijk, F. d. Boer, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “Information-passing and belief revision in multi-agent systems, ” in J. P. M. Müller, M. P. Singh, and A. S. Rao (eds.), Intelligent Agents V, Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL'98), vol. 1555 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1999, pp. 29–45.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. v. Eijk, F. d. Boer, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “Open multi-agent systems: agent communication and integration, ” in N. Jennings and Y. Lespèrance (eds.), Intelligent Agents VI, Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL'99), vol. 1757 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 218–232.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. v. Eijk, F. d. Boer, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “On dynamically generated ontology translators in agent communication, ” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 16, no.5, pp. 587–607, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Finin, D. McKay, R. Fritzson, and R. McEntire, “KQML: An information and knowledge exchange protocol, ” in K. Fuchi and T. Yokoi (eds.), Knowledge Building and Knowledge Sharing, Ohmsha and IOS Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    R. W. Floyd, “Assigning meaning to programs, ” in J. T. Schwartz (ed.), American Mathematics Society Symposia in Applied Mathematics, 1967, vol. 19, pp. 19–31.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Gamut, Logic, Language and Meaning Volume I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    P. Gärdenfors, Knowledge in flux: Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Cambridge: Bradford Books, MIT: Cambridge, MA, 1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    F. Guerin and J. Pitt, “A semantic framework for specifying agent communication languages, ” in Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-2000), IEEE Computer Society: Los Alamitos, CA, 2000, pp. 395–396.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    N. Gupta and D. Nau, “On the complexity of blocks-world planning, ” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 56, pp. 223–254, 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K. Hindriks, F. d. Boer, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “Agent programming in 3APL, ” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 2, pp. 357–401, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    C. Hoare, “An axiomaticbasis for computer programming, ” Communications of the ACM, vol. 12, no.10, pp. 576–580, 1969.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    C. Hoare, “Communicating sequential processes, ” Communications of the ACM, vol. 21, no.8, pp. 666–677, 1978.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    H. Jifeng, M. Josephs, and C. Hoare, “A theory of synchrony and asynchrony, ” in Proc. of the IFIP Working Conference on Programming Concepts and Methods, 1990, pp. 446–465.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik, “Reaching agreements through argumentation: A logical model and implementation, ” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 104, no.1–2, pp. 1–69, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Y. Labrou and T. Finin, “Semantics for an agent communication language, ” in M. Singh, A. Rao, and M. Wooldridge (eds.), Proceedings of Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL'97), vol. 1365 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 209–214.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. Labrou, T. Finin, and Y. Peng, “Agent communication languages: The current landscape, ” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 14, no.2, pp. 45–52, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    B. v. Linder, W. v. d. Hoek, and J.-J. Meyer, “Communicating rational agents, ” in KI-94: Advances in AI, vol. 861 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1994, pp. 202–213.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Loeckx and K. Sieber, The Foundations of Program Verification, Wiley-Teubner Series in Computer Science, John Wiley and Sons and B.G. Teubner: Stuttgart, 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Maes, R. Guttman, and A. Moukas, “Agent that buy and sell, ” Communications of the ACM, vol. 42, no.3, pp. 81–91, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    B. Mayoh, Constraint Programming, Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    J. Misra and K. Chandy, “Proofs of networks of processes, ” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 7, no.4, pp. 417–426, 1981.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. Naur, “Proof of algorithms by general snapshots, ” Nordisk tidskrift for informationsbehandling, vol. 6, no.4, pp. 310–316, 1966.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Owicki and D. Gries, “An axiomatic proof technique for parallel programs, ” Acta Informatica, vol. 6, pp. 319–340, 1976.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    J. Pitt and A. Mamdani, “Some remarks on the semantics of FIPA's agent communication language, ” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 2, no.4, pp. 333–356, 1999.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    G. Plotkin, “A structured approach to operational semantics, ” Technical Report DAIMI FN-19, Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, 1981.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    H. Prakken, “On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments, ” in M. Ojeda-Aciego, I. d. Guzman, G. Brewka, and L. Pereira (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th European Workshop on Logics in Artificial Inteligence (JELIA 2000), vol. 1919 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 2000.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    A. Rao, “AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language, ” in W. v. d. Velde and J. Perram (eds.), Agents Breaking Away, vol. 1038 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1996, pp. 42–55.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    V. Saraswat, Concurrent Constraint Programming, The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1993.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    V. Saraswat, M. Rinard, and P. Panangaden, “Semantic foundations of concurrent constraint programming, ” in Proceedings of the 18th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'91), 1991, pp. 333–352.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Y. Shoham, “Agent-oriented programming, ” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 60, pp. 51–92, 1993.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    C. Sierra, N. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons, “A framework for argumentation-based negotiation, ” in M. Singh, A. Rao, and M. Wooldridge (eds.), Intelligent Agents IV·Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL'97), vol. 1365 of Lecture Notes in Articial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 1998, pp. 177–192.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    M. Singh, “Agent communication languages: Rethinking the principles, ” IEEE Computer, vol. 31, no.12, pp. 40–47, 1998.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    S. Thomas, “PLACA, an agent oriented programming language, ” Ph.D. thesis, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    A. Turing, “Checking a large routine, ” in Report on a Conference on High-Speed Automatic Calculating Machines, University Mathematical Laboratory: Cambridge, 1949, pp. 67–69.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    M. Wooldridge, “Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication, ” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 9–31, 2000.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    J. Zwiers, Compositionality, Concurrency and Partial Correctness, vol. 321 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1989.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J. Zwiers, A. d. Bruin, and W.-P. d. Roever, “A proof system for partial correctness of Dynamic Networks of Processes, ” in Proceedings of the Conference on Logics of Programs, vol. 164 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1983, pp. 513–527.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rogier M. Van Eijk
    • 1
  • Frank S. De Boer
    • 1
  • Wiebe Van Der Hoek
    • 1
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations