Determining the Envelope of Emergent Agent Behaviour via Architectural Transformation

  • Oswaldo Terán
  • Bruce Edmonds
  • Steve Wallis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1986)


In this paper we propose a methodology to help analyse tendencies in MAS to complement those of simple inspection, Monte Carlo and syntactic proof. We suggest an architecture that allows an exhaustive model-based search of possible system trajectories in significant fragments of a MAS using forward inference. The idea is to identify tendencies, especially emergent tendencies, by automating the search through possible parameterisations of the model and the choices made by the agents. Subsequently, a proof of these tendencies could be attempted over all possible conditions using syntactic proof procedures. Additionally, we propose and exemplify a computational procedure to help implement this. The strategy consists of: “un-encapsulating” the MAS so as to reveal and then exploit the maximum information about logical dependencies in the system. The idea is to make possible the complete exploration of model behaviour over a range of parameterisations and agent choices.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Axtell, R., R. Axelrod, J. M. Epstein, and M. D. Cohen, “Aligning Simulation Models: A Case of Study and Results”, Computational Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(2), pp. 123–141, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castelfranchi, C. and Y. Lesperance (Editors), Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages. — 7th International Workshop, ATAL-2000, Boston, MA, USA, July 7—9, 2000, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (this volume).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeLoach Scott and Mark Wood, “Developing Multiagent Systems with agentTool”, in [2].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engelfriet, J., C. Jonker and J. Treur, “Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems in Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic”, Artificial Intelligence Group, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koen, V.Hindriks, Frank S. de Boer, Wiebe van der Hoek and John-Jules Ch. Meyer, “Agent Programming with Declarative Goals”, in [2].Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCune, W., OTTER 3.0 Reference Manual Guide, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moss, S., H. Gaylard, S. Wallis, B. Edmonds, “SDML: A Multi-Agent Language for Organizational Modelling”, Computational Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(1), 43–69, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riley, Patrick, Peter Stone and Manuela Veloso, “Layered Disclosure: Revealing Agents’ Internals”, in [2].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapiro, Steven and Yves Lesperance, “Modeling Multiagent Systems with CASL-A Feature Interaction Resolution Application”, in [2].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wos, L., Automated Reasoning: 33 Basic Research Problems, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA, 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zeigler, B.,, Theory of Modelling and Simulation, Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Fl, USA, 1976.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oswaldo Terán
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bruce Edmonds
    • 2
  • Steve Wallis
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Policy ModellingManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Operation Research and Centre for Simulation and ModellingUniversidad de Los AndesVenezuela

Personalised recommendations