Verifying Social Expectations by Model Checking Truncated Paths

  • Stephen Cranefield
  • Michael Winikoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5428)


One approach to moderating the expected behaviour of agents in open societies is the use of explicit languages for defining norms, conditional commitments and/or social expectations, together with infrastructure supporting conformance checking. This paper presents a logical account of the fulfilment and violation of social expectations modelled as conditional rules over a hybrid linear propositional temporal logic. Our semantics captures the intuition that the fulfilment or violation of an expectation must be determined without recourse to information from later states. We define a means of updating expectations from one state to the next based on formula progression, and show how conformance checking was implemented by extending the MCLITE and MCFULL algorithms of the Hybrid Logics Model Checker.


Model Check Temporal Logic Multiagent System Linear Temporal Logic Hybrid Logic 
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.
    Cortés, U.: Electronic institutions and agents. AgentLink News 15, 14–15 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dragone, L.: Hybrid logics model checker (2005),
  3. 3.
    Cranefield, S.: A rule language for modelling and monitoring social expectations in multi-agent systems. In: Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J.S., Vázquez-Salceda, J. (eds.) ANIREM 2005 and OOOP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3913, pp. 246–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Model checking a path. In: Amadio, R., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 251–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence 116(1-2), 123–191 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Campenhout, D.V.: Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In: Hunt Jr., W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Franceschet, M., de Rijke, M.: Model checking hybrid logics (with an application to semistructured data). Journal of Applied Logic 4(3), 279–304 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. In: Trappl, R. (ed.) Cybernetics and Systems 2004. Austrian Society for Cybernetics Studies, vol. II, pp. 570–575 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pp. 528–535. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Meyer, J.J.C., Chaib-draa, B.: A logical model for commitment and argument network for agent communication. In: AAMAS 2004, pp. 792–799. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Viganò, F., Colombetti, M.: Symbolic model checking of institutions. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on electronic commerce, pp. 35–44. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Endriss, U.: Temporal logics for representing agent communication protocols. In: Dignum, F.P.M., van Eijk, R.M., Flores, R. (eds.) AC 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3859, pp. 15–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spoletini, P., Verdicchio, M.: An automata-based monitoring technique for commitment-based multi-agent systems. In: Hubner, J.F., et al. (eds.) COIN 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5428, pp. 172–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Cranefield
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Higher Education Development CentreUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Computer Science and Information TechnologyRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations