Advertisement

Applied Intelligence

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 95–117 | Cite as

Compositional Verification of a Multi-Agent System for One-to-Many Negotiation

  • Frances M.T. Brazier
  • Frank Cornelissen
  • Rune Gustavsson
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Olle Lindeberg
  • Bianca Polak
  • Jan Treur
Article

Abstract

Verification of multi-agent systems hardly occurs in design practice. One of the difficulties is that required properties for a multi-agent system usually refer to multi-agent behaviour which has nontrivial dynamics. To constrain these multi-agent behavioural dynamics, often a form of organisational structure is used, for example, for negotiating agents, by following strict protocols. The claim is that these negotiation protocols entail a structured process that is manageable with respect to analysis, design and execution of such a multi-agent system. In this paper this is shown by a case study: verification of a multi-agent system for one-to-many negotiation in the domain of load balancing of electricity use. A compositional verification method for multi-agent systems is applied that allows to (1) logically relate dynamic properties of the multi-agent system as a whole to dynamic properties of agents, and (2) logically relate dynamic properties of agents to properties of their subcomponents. Given that properties of these subcomponents can be verified by more standard methods, these logical relationships provide proofs of the dynamic properties of the multi-agent system as a whole.

compositional verification multi-agent system negotiation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    F.M.T. Brazier, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Principles of component-based design of intelligent agents,” Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 41, pp. 1-28, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Fisher and M.Wooldridge, “On the formal specification and verification of multi-agent systems,” in International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, edited by M. Huhns and M. Singh, special issue on Formal Methods in Cooperative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 6, pp. 67-94, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    N.R. Jennings, “On agent-based software engineering,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 277-296, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Wooldridge, N.R. Jennings, and D. Kinny, “A methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents-99) Seattle, WA, 1999, pp. 69-76. Extended version: M. Wooldridge, N.R. Jennings and D. Kinny, “The gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design,” Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 285-312, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.S. Gero and F. Sudweeks (eds.), Artificial Intelligence in Design '98, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Abadi and L. Lamport, “Composing specifications,” ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 73-132, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Hooman, “Compositional verification of a distributed realtime arbitration protocol,” Real-Time Systems, vol. 6, pp. 173-206, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.M. Jonker and J. Treur, “Compositional verification of multiagent systems: A formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness,” in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Compositionality, COMPOS'97, edited by W.P. de Roever, H. Langmaack, and A. Pnueli. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, SpringerVerlag, pp. 350-380, 1998. Extended version in International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 11, pp. 51-92, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F.M.T. Brazier, F. Cornelissen, R. Gustavsson, C.M. Jonker, O. Lindeberg, B. Polak, and J. Treur, “Agents negotiating for load balancing of electricity use,” in Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS'98, edited by M.P. Papazoglou, M. Takizawa, B. Krämer and S. Chanson, IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 622-629, 1998. Extended version in Electronic Commerce Research and Applications Journal, vol. 1, pp. 208-224, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F.M.T. Brazier, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, “Dynamics and control in component-based agent models,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 17, pp. 1007-1048, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    W.P. de Roever, H. Langmaack, and A. Pnueli (eds.), in Proceedings of the International Workshop on Compositionality, COMPOS'97. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N.E.M. Leemans, J. Treur, and M. Willems, “A semantical perspective on verification of knowledge,” Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 40, pp. 33-70, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Engelfriet, C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur, Compositional verification of Multi-Agent Systems in Temporal Multi-Epirtemic Logic, in Intelligent Agents V, Proc. of the Fifth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ATAL'98, edited by J.P. Mueller, M.P. Singh and A.S. Rao, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1555, Springer Verlag, pp. 177-194, 1999. Extended version in: Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 11, pp. 195-225, 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Z. Manna, and A. Pnueli, Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety, Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Gustavsson, “Requirements on information systems as business enablers,” Invited paper, in Proceedings of DA/DSM Europe DistribuTECH'97, PennWell, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Akkermans, F. Ygge, and R. Gustavsson, “HOMEBOTS: Intelligent decentralized services for energy management,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the Management of Industrial and Corporate Knowledge, ISMICK'96, 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J.S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin, Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation Among Computers, MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Treur and M. Willems, “A logical foundation for verification,” in Proc. of the 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI'94, edited by A.G. Cohn, John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1994, pp. 745-749.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J.F.A.K. van Benthem, The Logic of Time: A Model-Theoretic Investigation into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology and Temporal Discourse, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Darimont and A. van Lamsweerde, “Formal refinement patterns for goal-driven requirements elaboration,” in Proc. of the Fourth ACM Symposium on the Foundation of Software Engineering (FSE4), 1996, pp. 179-190.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Dubois, P. Du Bois, and J.M. Zeippen, “Aformal requirements engineering method for real-time, concurrent, and distributed systems,” in Proceedings of the Real-Time Systems Conference, RTS'95, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    C.M. Jonker, M. Klusch, and J. Treur, “Design of collaborative information agents,” in Cooperative Information Agents IV, Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, CIA 2000, edited by M. Klusch and L. Kerschberg, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1860, Springer Verlag, 2000, pp. 262-283.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. Ferber, O. Gutknecht, C.M. Jonker, J.P. Mueller, and J. Treur, “Organization models and behavioural requirements specification for multi-agent systems,” in Proc. of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS 2000, IEEE Computer Society Press, 2000. Extended version in Proc. of the ECAI 2000 Workshop on Modelling Artificial Societies and Hybrid Organizations, MASHO'00, 2000.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Benjamins, D. Fensel, and R. Straatman, “Assumptions of problem-solving methods and their role in knowledge engineering,” in Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on AI, ECAI'96, edited by W. Wahlster, John Wiley and Sons, 1996, pp. 408-412.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    F.M.T. Brazier, J. Treur, N.J.E. Wijngaards, and M. Willems, “Temporal semantics of compositional task models and problem solving methods,” Data and Knowledge Engineering, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 17-42, 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Fensel, A. Schonegge, R. Groenboom, and B. Wielinga, “Specification and verification of knowledge-based systems,” in Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, KAW'96, edited by B.R. Gaines and M.A. Musen, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, pp. 4/1-4/20, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frances M.T. Brazier
  • Frank Cornelissen
  • Rune Gustavsson
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Olle Lindeberg
  • Bianca Polak
  • Jan Treur

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations