The Refinement of Choreographed Multi-Agent Systems

  • Lăcrămioara Aştefănoaei
  • Frank S. de Boer
  • Mehdi Dastani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5948)

Abstract

This paper generalises the theory of agent refinement from [1] to multi-agent systems in the presence of new coordination mechanisms extended with real time. The generalisation is such that refinement is compositional. This means that refinement at the individual level implies refinement at the multi-agent system level. Compositionality is an important property since it reduces heavily the verification process. Thus having a theory of refinement is a crucial step towards the verification of multi-agent systems’ correctness.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Astefanoaei, L., de Boer, F.S.: Model-checking agent refinement. In: Padgham, L., Parkes, D.C., Müller, J., Parsons, S. (eds.) AAMAS, IFAAMAS, pp. 705–712 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandy, K.M., Misra, J.: Parallel Program Design: A Foundation. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading (1988)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alur, R.: Timed automata. In: Halbwachs, N., Peled, D.A. (eds.) CAV 1999. LNCS, vol. 1633, pp. 8–22. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Glabbeek, R.J.: The linear time-branching time spectrum (extended abstract). In: Baeten, J.C.M., Klop, J.W. (eds.) CONCUR 1990. LNCS, vol. 458, pp. 278–297. Springer, Heidelberg (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., Wooldridge, M.: Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 12(2), 239–256 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Sharpanskykh, A., Treur, J.: Specification and verification of dynamics in cognitive agent models. In: IAT, pp. 247–254 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raimondi, F., Lomuscio, A.: Automatic verification of multi-agent systems by model checking via ordered binary decision diagrams. J. Applied Logic 5(2), 235–251 (2007)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Omicini, A.: Give agents their artifacts: the A&A approach for engineering working environments in mas. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) AAMAS, IFAAMAS, p. 150 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arbab, F., Astefanoaei, L., de Boer, F.S., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.C., Tinnemeier, N.: Reo connectors as coordination artifacts in 2APL systems. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) PRIMA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357, pp. 42–53. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelernter, D., Zuck, L.D.: On what linda is: Formal description of linda as a reactive system. In: Garlan, D., Le Métayer, D. (eds.) COORDINATION 1997. LNCS, vol. 1282, pp. 187–204. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dastani, M., Grossi, D., Meyer, J.J.C., Tinnemeier, N.: Normative multi-agent programs and their logics. In: KRAMAS 2008: Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tinnemeier, N., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.J.: Orwell’s nightmare for agents? programming multi-agent organisations. In: Proc. of ProMAS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boella, G., Broersen, J., van der Torre, L.: Reasoning about constitutive norms, counts-as conditionals, institutions, deadlines and violations. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.T. (eds.) PRIMA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357, pp. 86–97. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meng, S., Arbab, F.: Web services choreography and orchestration in Reo and constraint automata. In: Cho, Y., Wainwright, R.L., Haddad, H., Shin, S.Y., Koo, Y.W. (eds.) SAC, pp. 346–353. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Misra, J.: A programming model for the orchestration of web services. In: SEFM, pp. 2–11. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A.K., Desai, N., Patti, V., Singh, M.P.: Choice, interoperability, and conformance in interaction protocols and service choreographies. In: Sierra, C., Castelfranchi, C., Decker, K.S., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) AAMAS (2), IFAAMAS, pp. 843–850 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hessel, A., Larsen, K.G., Mikucionis, M., Nielsen, B., Pettersson, P., Skou, A.: Testing real-time systems using UPPAAL. In: Hierons, R.M., Bowen, J.P., Harman, M. (eds.) FORTEST. LNCS, vol. 4949, pp. 77–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bouyer, P., Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G.: Optimal infinite scheduling for multi-priced timed automata. Formal Methods in System Design 32(1), 3–23 (2008)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.J.C.: Agent programming in 3APL. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(4), 357–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hopcroft, J.E., Motwani, R., Rotwani, U.J.D.: Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computability. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brzozowski, J.A.: Derivatives of regular expressions. J. ACM 11(4), 481–494 (1964)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clavel, M., Durán, F., Eker, S., Lincoln, P., Martí-Oliet, N., Meseguer, J., Talcott, C.L. (eds.): All About Maude - A High-Performance Logical Framework. LNCS, vol. 4350. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G., Håkansson, J., Pettersson, P., Yi, W., Hendriks, M.: UPPAAL 4.0. In: QEST, pp. 125–126. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lăcrămioara Aştefănoaei
    • 1
  • Frank S. de Boer
    • 1
  • Mehdi Dastani
    • 2
  1. 1.CWIAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Universiteit UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations