A Framework for Validating Task Assignment in Multiagent Systems Using Requirements Importance

  • Hiroyuki Nakagawa
  • Nobukazu Yoshioka
  • Akihiko Ohsuga
  • Shinichi Honiden
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7057)


Multi-agent systems (MASs) are one of the effective approaches for dealing with the recent increase in software complexity and their autonomy. In the MAS research community, there has recently been increasing interest in the adoption of requirements engineering techniques to bridge the gap between the system requirements and the system design. One of the most important tasks based on the requirements description in the MAS design activity is the extraction of roles, which are the fundamental components of multi-agent systems, from it. It is also important to comprehend the relative degree of responsibility of the individual roles. The comprehension helps the developer decide the system architecture and discuss the performance and stability of the system. We introduce the concept of importance as a quantitative metric and an evaluation framework for the extraction of a suitable role set for the system and the task assignment to these roles. The importance is propagated from the requirements to the roles through their assigned tasks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework through a case study and show that our metric and evaluation framework help not only to identify the importance of each role, but also to determine the system architecture.


Multiagent System Task Assignment Zone Manager Goal Model Requirement Engineer 
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.
    Wooldridge, M.: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Luck, M., Ashri, R., D’Inverno, M.: Agent-Based Software Development. Artech House (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernon, C., Cossentino, M., Pavón, J.: Agent-oriented software engineering. The Knowledge Engineering Review 20(2), 99–116 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20(1-2), 3–50 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Letier, E.: Reasoning about Agents in Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering. PhD thesis, Universite Catholique de Louvain (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Lamsweerde, A.: Goal-oriented requirements engineering: A guided tour. In: Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 2001), Toronto, Canada, pp. 249–262 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nakagawa, H., Karube, T., Honiden, S.: Analysis of multi-agent systems based on KAOS modeling. In: Proc. of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE 2006), pp. 926–929. ACM, Shanghai (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Juan, T., Sterling, L.: The ROADMAP Meta-Model for Intelligent Adaptive Multi-Agent Systems in Open Environments. In: Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.J. (eds.) AOSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2935, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Prometheus: A Methodology for Developing Intelligent Agents. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J.J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 174–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cossentino, M., Gaglio, S., Sabatucci, L., Seidita, V.: The PASSI and Agile PASSI MAS Meta-Models Compared with a Unifying Proposal. In: Pěchouček, M., Petta, P., Varga, L.Z. (eds.) CEEMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3690, pp. 183–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    CEDITI: Objectiver,
  14. 14.
    Karlsson, J.: Software requirements prioritizing. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Conference on Requirements Engineering (ICRE 1996), p. 110. IEEE CS (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karlsson, J., Ryan, K.: A cost-value approach for prioritizing requirements. IEEE Software 14(5), 67–74 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bagnall, A.J., Rayward-Smith, V.J., Whittley, I.M.: The next release problem. Information and Software Technology 43(14), 883–890 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang, Y., Harman, M., Mansouri, S.A.: The multi-objective next release problem. In: Proc. of the 9th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO 2007), pp. 1129–1137. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greer, D., Ruhe, G.: Software release planning: an evolutionary and iterative approach. Information and Software Technology 46(4), 243–253 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    van den Akker, M., Brinkkemper, S., Diepen, G., Versendaal, J.: Software product release planning through optimization and what-if analysis. Information and Software Technology 50(1-2), 101–111 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Finkelstein, A., Harman, M., Mansouri, S.A., Ren, J., Zhang, Y.: A search based approach to fairness analysis in requirement assignments to aid negotiation, mediation and decision making, vol. 14, pp. 231–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heindl, M., Biffl, S.: A case study on value-based requirements tracing. In: Proc. of ESEC/FSE-13, pp. 60–69. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Egyed, A., Biffl, S., Heindl, M., Grünbacher, P.: Determining the cost-quality trade-off for automated software traceability. In: Proc. of the 20th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE 2005), pp. 360–363. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Egyed, A., Biffl, S., Heindl, M., Grünbacher, P.: A value-based approach for understanding cost-benefit trade-offs during automated software traceability. In: Proc. of the 3rd International Workshop on Traceability in Emerging forms of Software Engineering (TEFSE 2005), pp. 2–7. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feather, M.S., Cornford, S.L.: Quantitative risk-based requirements reasoning. Requirements Engineering 8(4), 248–265 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Mouratidis, H., Manson, G.: Multi-Agent Systems and Security Requirements Analysis. In: Lucena, C., Garcia, A., Romanovsky, A., Castro, J., Alencar, P.S.C. (eds.) SELMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2940, pp. 35–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, E.S.K.: Modeling organizations for information systems requirements engineering. In: Proc. of the First IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 34–41 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Nakagawa
    • 1
  • Nobukazu Yoshioka
    • 2
  • Akihiko Ohsuga
    • 1
  • Shinichi Honiden
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.The University of Electro-CommunicationsChofu-shiJapan
  2. 2.National Institute of InformaticsChiyoda-kuJapan
  3. 3.The University of TokyoBunkyo-kuJapan

Personalised recommendations