Advertisement

Compositional Verification of Multi-agent Systems in Temporal Multi-epistemic Logic

  • Joeri Engelfriet
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1555)

Abstract

Compositional verification aims at managing the complexity of the verification process by exploiting compositionality of the system architecture. In this paper we explore the use of a temporal epistemic logic to formalize the process of verification of compositional multi-agent systems. The specification of a system, its properties and their proofs are of a compositional nature, and are formalized within a compositional temporal logic: Temporal Multi-Epistemic Logic. It is shown that compositional proofs are valid under certain conditions. Finally, the possibility of incorporating default persistence of information in a system, is explored.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abadi, M. and L. Lamport (1993). Composing specifications, ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 73–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barringer, H., M. Fisher, D. Gabbay, and A. Hunter (1991). Meta-reasoning in executable temporal logic. In: J. Allen, R. Fikes, E. Sandewall, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR’91.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barringer, H., M. Fisher, D. Gabbay, R. Owens, and M. Reynolds (1996). The Imperative Future: Principles of Executable Temporal Logic, Research Studies Press Ltd. and John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Benerecetti, F. Giunchiglia, and L. Serafini (1999). A model-checking algorithm for multiagent systems. In this volume.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benthem, J.F.A.K. van (1983). The Logic of Time: a Model-theoretic Investigation into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology and Temporal Discourse, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier, F.M.T., F. Cornelissen, R. Gustavsson, C.M. Jonker, O. Lindeberg, B. Polak, and J. Treur, (1998). Compositional design and verification of a multi-agent system for one-to-many negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazier, F.M.T., B.M. Dunin-Keplicz, N.R. Jennings, and J. Treur, (1995) Formal specification of multi-agent systems: a real world case. In: Lesser, V. (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, MIT Press, pp. 25–32. Extended version in: Huhns, M. and Singh, M. (eds.), International Journal of Co-operative Information Systems, IJCIS vol. 6 (1), special issue on Formal Methods in Co-operative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 67–94.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cornelissen, F., C.M. Jonker, and J. Treur (1997). Compositional verification of knowledge-based systems: a case study for diagnostic reasoning. In: E. Plaza, R. Benjamins (eds.), Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management, Proceedings of the 10th EKAW, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1319, Springer Verlag, pp. 65–80.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dams, D., R. Gerth, and P. Kelb (1996). Practical symbolic model checking of the full μ-calculus using compositional abstractions. Report, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engelfriet, J. (1996). Minimal temporal epistemic logic, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 37, pp. 233–259 (special issue on Combining Logics).zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelfriet, J., and J. Treur (1996). Specification of nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Proceedings International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, Springer-Verlag, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1085, pp. 111–125.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engelfriet, J., and J. Treur (1996). Executable temporal logic for nonmonotonic reasoning; Journal of Symbolic Computation, vol. 22, no. 5&6, pp. 615–625.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engelfriet, J., and J. Treur (1997). An interpretation of default logic in temporal epistemic logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 369–388.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fensel, D., and R. Benjamins (1996). Assumptions in model-based diagnosis. In: B.R. Gaines, M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, pp. 5/1–5/18.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fensel, D., A. Schonegge, R. Groenboom, and B. Wielinga (1996). Specification and verification of knowledge-based systems. In: B.R. Gaines, M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, pp. 4/1–4/20.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finger, M. and D. Gabbay (1992). Adding a temporal dimension to a logic system. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, pp. 203–233.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fisher, M. (1994). A survey of Concurrent METATEM — the language and its applications. In: D.M. Gabbay, H.J. Ohlbach (eds.), Temporal Logic — Proceedings of the First International Conference, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 827, pp. 480–505.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher, M., and M. Wooldridge (1997). On the formal specification and verification of multi-agent systems. In: Huhns, M. and Singh, M. (eds.), International Journal of Co-operative Information Systems, IJCIS vol. 6(1), special issue on Formal Methods in Co-operative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 37–65.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hooman, J. (1994). Compositional verification of a distributed real-time arbitration protocol. Real-Time Systems, vol. 6, pp. 173–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jonker, C.M. and J. Treur (1998). Compositional verification of multi-agent Systems: a formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness. In: W.P. DeRoever, H. Langmaack, A. Pnueli, (eds.). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Compositionality, Springer Verlag, to appear.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Treur, J., and M. Willems (1994). A logical foundation for verification. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI’94, A.G. Cohn (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 745–749.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joeri Engelfriet
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence GroupVrije Universiteit AmsterdamHV AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations