Advertisement

Formal Consistency Verification of Deliberative Agents with Respect to Communication Protocols

  • Jaime Ramírez
  • Angélica de Antonio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3228)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show a method that is able to detect inconsistencies in the reasoning carried out by a deliberative agent. The agent is supposed to be provided with a hybrid Knowledge Base expressed in a language called CCR-2, based on production rules and hierarchies of frames, which permits the representation of non-monotonic reasoning, uncertain reasoning and arithmetic constraints in the rules. The method can give a specification of the scenarios in which the agent would deduce an inconsistency. We define a scenario to be a description of the initial agent’s state (in the agent life cycle), a deductive tree of rule firings, and a partially ordered set of messages and/or stimuli that the agent must receive from other agents and/or the environment. Moreover, the method will make sure that the scenarios will be valid w.r.t. the communication protocols in which the agent is involved.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    de Kleer, J.: An assumption based TMS. Artificial Intelligence 28, 127–162 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rousset, M.: On the consistency of knowledge bases: The COVADIS system. In: Rousset, M. (ed.) Proceedings ECAI 1988, Munich, Alemania, pp. 79–84 (1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ginsberg, A.: Knowledge-base reduction: A new approach to checking knowledge bases for inconsistency and redundancy. In: Proceedings of the AAAI 1988, pp. 585–589 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Antonio, A.: Sistema para la verificación estructural y detección de inconsistencies en bases de conocimientos. In: de Antonio, A. (ed.) Final year project, Facultad de Informática, UPM (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meseguer, P.: Incremental verification of rule-based expert systems. In: Proceedings of the 10th. European Conference on AI (ECAI 1992), pp. 840–844 (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dahl, M., Williamson, K.: A verification strategy for long-term maintenance of large rule-based systems. In: Workshop Notes of the AAAI 1992WorkShop on Verification and Validation of expert Systems, pp. 66–71 (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ayel, M.: Protocols for consistency checking in expert system knowledge bases. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 1988), pp. 220–225 (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ayel, M., Laurent, J.P.: Validation, Verification and Test of Knowledge-Based Systems: SACCO-SYCOJET: Two Different Ways of Verifying Knowledged-Based Systems. John Wiley, Chichester (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Antonio, A., Cardeñosa, J., Martínez, L.: GKR: A generic model of knowledge representation. In: Proceedings of the 12th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1994). vol. II (Student Abstracts), p. 1438 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    d’Inverno, M., Kinny, D., Luck, M.: Interaction protocols in agentis. In: Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 261–268 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Antoniou, G.: Verification and correctness issues for nonmonotonic knowledge bases. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 12, 725–738 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kröger, F.: Temporal Logic of Programs. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramýrez, J., de Antonio, A.: Knowledge base semantic verification based on contexts propagation, Notes of the AAAI 2001 Symposium on Model-based Validation of Intelligence (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime Ramírez
    • 1
  • Angélica de Antonio
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations