Advertisement

Correctness Properties for Multiagent Systems

  • Munindar P. Singh
  • Amit K. Chopra
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)

Abstract

What distinguishes multiagent systems from other software systems is their emphasis on the interactions among autonomous, heterogeneous agents. This paper motivates and characterizes correctness properties for multiagent systems. These properties are centered on commitments, and capture correctness at a high level. In contrast to existing approaches, commitments underlie key correctness primitives understood in terms of meaning; for example, commitment alignment maps to interoperability; commitment discharge maps to compliance. This paper gives illustrative examples and characterizations of these and other properties. The properties cover the specification of the principal artifacts—protocols, roles, and agents—of an interaction-based approach to designing multiagent systems, and thus provide the formal underpinnings of the approach.

Keywords

Business Process Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Correctness Property Interaction Protocol 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolution of cross-organizational business processes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 19(2) (to appear, April 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Arrott, M., Specht, B., Singh, M.P.: Engineering foreign exchange processes via commitment protocols. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International Conference on Services Computing (SCC), pp. 514–521. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desai, N., Mallya, A.U., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 31(12), 1015–1027 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: A priori conformance verification for guaranteeing interoperability in open environments. In: Dan, A., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4294, pp. 339–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fournet, C., Hoare, C.A.R., Rajamani, S.K., Rehof, J.: Stuck-free conformance. In: Alur, R., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 2004. LNCS, vol. 3114, pp. 242–254. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giordano, L., Martelli, A.: Verifying agent conformance with protocols specified in a temporal action logic. In: Basili, R., Pazienza, M.T. (eds.) AI*IA 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4733, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Aalst, W., van Hee, K.: Workflow Management Models, Methods, and Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Multiagent commitment alignment. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), Columbia, SC, IFAAMAS, May 2009, pp. 937–944 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hohfeld, W.N.: Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and other Legal Essays. Yale University Press, New Haven (1919); A 1919 printing of articles from 1913Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh, M.P.: Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), July 2008, pp. 176–181. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    OMG: The Object Management Group’s Model Driven Architecture, MDA (2006), http://www.omg.org/mda/
  15. 15.
    Jain, A.K., Aparicio IV, M., Singh, M.P.: Agents for process coherence in virtual enterprises. Communications of the ACM 42(3), 62–69 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Contextualizing commitment protocols. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1345–1352 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Desai, N., Singh, M.P.: A modular action description language for protocol composition. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), July 2007, pp. 962–967. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Desai, N., Singh, M.P.: On the enactability of business protocols. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), July 2008, pp. 1126–1131. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: An algebra for commitment protocols. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2), 143–163 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    AMQP: Advanced message queuing protocol (2007), http://www.amqp.org
  21. 21.
    Lamport, L.: Time, clocks, and the ordering of events in a distributed system. Communications of the ACM 21(7), 558–565 (1978)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Constitutive interoperability. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), May 2008, pp. 797–804 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: Alternating refinement relations. In: Sangiorgi, D., de Simone, R. (eds.) CONCUR 1998. LNCS, vol. 1466, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols: Enabling open Web-based multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3), 217–236 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parnas, D.L.: Information distribution aspects of design methodology. In: Proceedings of the International Federation for Information Processing Congress, vol. TA-3, pp. 26–30. North Holland, Amsterdam (1971)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hohpe, G., Woolf, B.: Enterprise Integration Patterns: Designing, Building, and Deploying Messaging Solutions. Signature Series. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Harel, D., Gery, E.: Executable object modeling with statecharts. IEEE Computer 30(7), 31–42 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh, M.P.: Distributed enactment of multiagent workflows: Temporal logic for service composition. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), July 2003, pp. 907–914. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pesic, M., Schonenberg, M.H., Sidorova, N., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: Constraint-based workflow models: Change made easy. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2007, Part I. LNCS, vol. 4803, pp. 77–94. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu, Q., Pu, C., Sahai, A., Barga, R.S.: Categorization and optimization of synchronization dependencies in business processes. In: Proceedings of the 23nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), pp. 306–315. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    FIPA: FIPA interaction protocol specifications, FIPA: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents (2003), http://www.fipa.org/repository/ips.html
  32. 32.
    Odell, J., Parunak, H.V.D., Bauer, B.: Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, AOSE (2001)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Benatallah, B., Casati, F., Toumani, F.: Representing, analysing and managing web service protocols. Data & Knowledge Engineering 58(3), 327–357 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bultan, T., Fu, X., Hull, R., Su, J.: Conversation specification: A new approach to design and analysis of e-service composition. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), pp. 403–410 (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dastani, M., Arbab, F., de Boer, F.S.: Coordination and composition in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 4rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 439–446. ACM, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: Proceedings of the 35th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL). ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh, M.P., Chopra, A.K., Desai, N.: Commitment-based SOA. IEEE Computer 42 (accepted 2009), http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers/
  38. 38.
    Foster, H., Uchitel, S., Magee, J., Kramer, J.: Model-based analysis of obligations in web service choreography. In: Proceedings of the Advanced International Conference on Telecommunications and International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (AICT-ICIW), pp. 149–156 (2006)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., Solanki, M.: Towards verifying compliance in agent-based web service compositions. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), Columbia, SC, International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 265–272 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Malone, T.W., Crowston, K., Herman, G.A. (eds.): Organizing Business Knowledge: The MIT Process Handbook. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grosof, B.N., Poon, T.C.: SweetDeal: Representing agent contracts with exceptions using XML rules, ontologies, and process descriptions. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the World Wide Web, pp. 340–349 (2003)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wyner, G.M., Lee, J.: Defining specialization for process models. In: [40], pp. 131–174. MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hull, R.: Artifact-centric business process models: Brief survey of research results and challenge. In: Meersman, R., Tari, Z. (eds.) OTM 2008, Part II. LNCS, vol. 5332, pp. 1152–1163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Defining interaction protocols using a commitment-based agent communication language. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), July 2003, pp. 520–527. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rovatsos, M.: Dynamic semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proceedings of the 6th international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Commitment machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Flexible protocol specification and execution: Applying event calculus planning using commitments. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), July 2002, pp. 527–534. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., Harland, J.: Enhancing commitment machines. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 198–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Johnson, M.W., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: When are two protocols the same? In: Huget, M.-P. (ed.) Communication in Multiagent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2650, pp. 253–268. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pp. 38–42. IOS Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Norman, T.J., Carbogim, D.V., Krabbe, E.C.W., Walton, D.N.: Argument and multi-agent systems. In: Reed, C., Norman, T.J. (eds.) Argumentation Machines. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2004)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bergenti, F., Gleizes, M.P., Zambonelli, F. (eds.): Methodologies and Software Engineering for Agent Systems. Kluwer, Boston (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Giorgini, P. (eds.): Agent-Oriented Methodologies. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Garcia-Ojeda, J.C., DeLoach, S.A., Robby, O.W.H., Valenzuela, J.: O-MaSE: A customizable approach to developing multiagent processes. In: Luck, M., Padgham, L. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII. LNCS, vol. 4951, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Munindar P. Singh
    • 1
  • Amit K. Chopra
    • 2
  1. 1.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Università degli Studi di TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations