Verification of Protocol Conformance and Agent Interoperability

  • Matteo Baldoni
  • Cristina Baroglio
  • Alberto Martelli
  • Viviana Patti
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3900)


In open multi-agent systems agent interaction is usually ruled by public protocols defining the rules the agents should respect in message exchanging. The respect of such rules guarantees interoperability. Given two agents that agree on using a certain protocol for their interaction, a crucial issue (known as “a priori conformance test”) is verifying if their interaction policies, i.e. the programs that encode their communicative behavior, will actually produce interactions which are conformant to the agreed protocol. An issue that is not always made clear in the existing proposals for conformance tests is whether the test preserves agents’ capability of interacting, besides certifying the legality of their possible conversations. This work proposes an approach to the verification of a priori conformance, of an agent’s conversation policy to a protocol, which is based on the theory of formal languages. The conformance test is based on the acceptance of both the policy and the protocol by a special finite state automaton and it guarantees the interoperability of agents that are individually proved conformant. Many protocols used in multi-agent systems can be expressed as finite state automata, so this approach can be applied to a wide variety of cases with the proviso that both the protocol specification and the protocol implementation can be translated into finite state automata. In this sense the approach is general. Easy applicability to the case when a logic-based language is used to implement the policies is shown by means of a concrete example, in which the language DyLOG, based on computational logic, is used.


Multiagent System State Automaton Interaction Protocol Finite State Automaton Incoming Message 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alberti, M., Daolio, D., Torroni, P., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P.: Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system. In: ACM SAC 2004, pp. 72–78. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alonso, G., Casati, F., Kuno, H., Machiraju, V.: Web Services. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Reasoning about self and others: Communicating agents in a modal action logic. In: Blundo, C., Laneve, C. (eds.) ICTCS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2841, pp. 228–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Reasoning about interaction protocols for customizing web service selection and composition. In: Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, Special issue on Web Services and Formal Methods (2006) (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V., Schifanella, C.: Verifying protocol conformance for logic-based communicating agents. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3487, pp. 192–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V., Schifanella, C.: Verifying the conformance of web services to global interaction protocols: a first step. In: Bravetti, M., Kloul, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.) EPEW/WS-EM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3670, pp. 257–271. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baldoni, M., Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Programming Rational Agents in a Modal Action Logic. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, Special issue on Logic-Based Agent Implementation 41(2-4), 207–257 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barbuceanu, M., Fox, M.: Cool: A language for describing coordination in multiagent systems. In: Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS 1995), pp. 17–24. MIT Press, Massachusetts (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Meyer, J.J., Chaib-Draa, B.: A computational model for conversation policies for agent communication. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3487, pp. 178–195. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bordini, R., Fisher, M., Pardavila, C., Wooldridge, M.: Model Checking AgentSpeak. In: Proc. of 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bravetti, M., Kloul, L., Zavattaro, G. (eds.): EPEW/WS-EM 2005. LNCS, vol. 3670. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Busi, N., Gorrieri, R., Guidi, C., Lucchi, R., Zavattaro, G.: Choreography and Orchestration: a synergic approach for system design. In: Proc. the 3rd Int. Conf. on Service Oriented Computing (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cabac, L., Moldt, D.: Formal semantics for AUML agent interaction protocol diagrams. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 47–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: Protocol conformance for logic-based agents. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) Proc. of IJCAI 2003, pp. 679–684. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (August 2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endriss, U., Maudet, N., Sadri, F., Toni, F.: Logic-based agent communication protocols. In: Dignum, F.P.M. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 91–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eshuis, R., Wieringa, R.: Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams. IEEE Trans. on Software Eng. 7(30) (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    FIPA. Fipa 97, specification part 2: Agent communication language. Technical report, FIPA (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents) (November 1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Schwind, C.: Specifying and verifying interaction protocols in a temporal action logic. Journal of Applied Logic (Special issue on Logic Based Agent Verification) (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A., Schwind, C.: Verifying communicating agents by model checking in a temporal action logic. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 57–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guerin, F.: Specifying Agent Communication Languages. PhD thesis, Imperial College, London (April 2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guerin, F., Pitt, J.: Verification and Compliance Testing. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 98–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Ullman, J.D.: Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huget, M.P., Koning, J.L.: Interaction Protocol Engineering. In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 179–193. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mamdani, A., Pitt, J.: Communication protocols in multi-agent systems: A development method and reference architecture. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 160–177. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maudet, N., Chaib-draa, B.: Commitment-based and dialogue-based protocols: new trends in agent communication languages. Knowledge engineering review 17(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H.V.D., Bauer, B.: Extending UML for agents. In: Proc. of the Agent-Oriented Information System Workshop at AAAI 2000 (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pitt, J., Guerin, F., Stergiou, C.: Protocols and intentional specifications of multi-party agent conversations for brokerage and auctions. In: Autonomous Agents 2000, Barcelona, pp. 269–276. ACM Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proc. of IJCAI 1998 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages. Springer, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walton, C.: Model checking agent dialogues. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3476, pp. 132–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matteo Baldoni
    • 1
  • Cristina Baroglio
    • 1
  • Alberto Martelli
    • 1
  • Viviana Patti
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversità degli Studi di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations