Modelling Unreliable and Untrustworthy Agent Behaviour

  • Marek Sergot
Part of the Advances in Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 28)


It cannot always be assumed that agents will behave as they are supposed to behave. Agents may fail to comply with system norms deliberately, in open agent systems or other competitive settings, or unintentionally, in unreliable environments because of factors beyond their control. In addition to analysing system properties that hold if specifications/norms are followed correctly, it is also necessary to predict, test, and verify the properties that hold if system norms are violated, and to test the effectiveness of introducing proposed control, enforcement, and recovery mechanisms. C+++ is an extended form of the action language C+ of Giunchiglia, Lee, Lifschitz, McCain, and Turner, designed for representing norms of behaviour and institutional aspects of (human or computer) societies. We present the permission component of C+++ and then illustrate on a simple example how it can be used in conjunction with standard model checkers for the temporal logic CTL to verify system properties in the case where agents may fail to comply with system norms.


Transition System Causal Theory Deontic Logic Action Description Causal Rule 
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.
    Subrahmanian, V.S., Bonatti, P., Dix, J., Eiter, T., Kraus, S., Ozcan, F., Ross, R.: Heterogeneous Agent Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rissanen, E., Sadighi Firozabadi, B., Sergot, M.J.: Towards a mechanism for discretionary overriding of access control (position paper). In: Proc. 12th International Workshop on Security Protocols, Cambridge, April 2004. (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artikis, A., Pitt, J., Sergot, M.J.: Animated specification of computational societies. In Castelfranchi, C, Johnson, W.L., eds.: Proc. 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’02), Bologna, ACM Press (2002) 1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J., Pitt, J.: Specifying electronic societies with the Causal Calculator. In Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J., Weiss, G., eds.: Agent-Oriented Software Engineering III. Proc. 3rd International Workshop (AOSE 2002), Bologna, July 2002. LNCS 2585, Springer (2003) 1–15Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of an argumentation protocol. In: Proc. 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL’03), Edinburgh, ACM Press (2003) 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.J.: Deontic interpreted systems. Studia Logica 75 (2003) 63–92zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lomuscio, A., Sergot, M.J.: A formalisation of violation, error recovery, and enforcement in the bit transmission problem. Journal of Applied Logic 2 (2004) 93–116zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sergot, M.: The language C+++. In Pitt, J., ed.: The Open Agent Society. Wiley (2004) (In press). Extended version: Technical Report 2004/8. Department of Computing, Imperial College, London.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153 (2004) 49–104zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lifschitz, V.: An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In: Proc. AAAI-98, AAAI Press (1998) 623–630Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Hoek, W, Roberts, M., Wooldridge, M.: Social laws in alternating time: Effectiveness, feasibility, and synthesis. Technical report, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Liverpool (2004) Submitted.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jamroga, W, van der Hoek, W, Wooldridge, M.: On obligations and abilities. In Lomuscio, A., Nute, D., eds.: Proc. 7th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON’04), Madeira, May 2004. LNAI 3065, Springer (2004) 165–181Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, J-J.: A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (1988) 109–136zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fioravanti, F., Pettorossi, A., Proietti, M.: Verifying CTL properties of infinite state systems by specializing constraint logic programs. In: Proceedings of Second ACM-Sigplan International Workshop on Verification and Computational Logic (VCL’01), Florence, September 2001. (2001) 85–96 Expanded version: Technical Report R. 544, IASI-CNR, Rome.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marek Sergot
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations