Advertisement

Modelling and Monitoring Interdependent Expectations

  • Stephen Cranefield
  • Michael Winikoff
  • Wamberto Vasconcelos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7254)

Abstract

Previous research on modelling and monitoring norms, contracts and commitments has studied the semantics of concepts such as obligation, permission, prohibition and commitment; languages for expressing behavioural constraints (such as norms or contracts) to be followed by agents in specific contexts; and mechanisms for run-time monitoring of fulfilment and violation of these constraints. However, there has been little work that provided all of these features while also allowing the current expectations of agents and the fulfilment and violation of these expectations to be expressed as first-class constructs in the language. This paper demonstrates the benefits of providing this capability by considering a variety of use cases and demonstrating how these can be addressed as applications of a previously defined temporal logic of expectations and an associated monitoring technique.

Keywords

Model Checker Temporal Logic Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Linear Temporal 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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T., van der Hoek, W., Tennenholtz, M., Wooldridge, M.: Power in normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 145–152. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alberti, M., Chesani, F., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Verifiable agent interaction in abductive logic programming: the \(\mathcal{S}\)CIFF framework. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic 9(4), 29:1–29:43 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. Applied Artificial Intelligence 20(2), 133–157 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aldewereld, H., Álvarez-Napagao, S., Dignum, F., Vázquez-Salceda, J.: Making norms concrete. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 807–814. IFAAMAS (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M.: Executable specification of open multi-agent systems. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(1), 31–65 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artificial Intelligence 116(1-2), 123–191 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Chaib-draa, B.: Commitment and Argument Network: A New Formalism for Agent Communication. In: Dignum, F. (ed.) ACL 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2922, pp. 146–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Meyer, J.J.C., Lespérance, Y.: A New Logical Semantics for Agent Communication. In: Inoue, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F. (eds.) CLIMA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4371, pp. 151–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Security policies for sharing knowledge in virtual communities. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A 36(3), 439–450 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to the special issue on normative multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 17(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.J.C.: Designing a Deontic Logic of Deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carmo, J., Jones, A.J.I.: Deontic logic and contrary-to-duties. In: Gabbay, D., Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 8, pp. 265–343. Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castelfranchi, C.: For a systematic theory of expectations. In: Proceedings of the 2nd European Cognitive Science Conference. Taylor & Francis (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 91–96. Morgan Kaufmann (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chittaro, L., Montanari, A.: Efficient temporal reasoning in the cached event calculus. Computational Intelligence 12(3), 359–382 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: Modelling Normative Frameworks Using Answer Set Programing. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5753, pp. 548–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M.: Verifying social expectations by model checking truncated paths. Journal of Logic and Computation 21(6), 1217–1256 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dastani, M., Brandsema, J., Dubel, A., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Debugging BDI-Based Multi-Agent Programs. In: Braubach, L., Briot, J.-P., Thangarajah, J. (eds.) ProMAS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5919, pp. 151–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dignum, F., Meyer, J.J.C., Wieringa, R.: A dynamic logic for reasoning about sub-ideal states. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Artificial Normative Reasoning, pp. 79–92 (1994)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dignum, F., Weigand, H., Verharen, E.: Meeting the Deadline: On the Formal Specification of Temporal Deontic Constraints. In: Michalewicz, M., Raś, Z.W. (eds.) ISMIS 1996. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1079, pp. 243–252. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Van Campenhout, D.: 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
  23. 23.
    Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Arcos, J.L.: AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 236–243. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farrell, A.D.H., Sergot, M.J., Sallé, M., Bartolini, C.: Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2 & 3), 99–129 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fornara, N., Viganò, F., Colombetti, M.: Agent communication and artificial institutions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 14(2), 121–142 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gabbay, D.: The Declarative Past and Imperative Future: Executable Temporal Logic for Interactive Systems. In: Banieqbal, B., Pnueli, A., Barringer, H. (eds.) Temporal Logic in Specification. LNCS, vol. 398, pp. 409–448. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    García-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A.: Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 667–673. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    García-Camino, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Vasconcelos, W.W.: Constraint rule-based programming of norms for electronic institutions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 18(1), 186–217 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: How do agents comply with norms? Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 09121 (2009), http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2009/1909
  30. 30.
    Lomuscio, A., Penczek, W., Solanki, M., Szreter, M.: Runtime monitoring of contract regulated web services. In: Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Formal Languages and Analysis of Contract-Oriented Software, pp. 9–16 (2009), http://www.dsi.uclm.es/retics/flacos09/Flacos09-proceedings.pdf#page=9
  31. 31.
    Modgil, S., Faci, N., Meneguzzi, F., Oren, N., Miles, S., Luck, M.: A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 153–160. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nickles, M., Rovatsos, M., Weiss, G.: Expectation-oriented modeling. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18, 891–918 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raimondi, F., Lomuscio, A.: Automatic Verification of Deontic Properties of Multi-agent Systems. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On social laws for artificial agent societies: off-line design. Artificial Intelligence 73(1-2), 231–252 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Singh, M.P.: Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: Cohn, A. (ed.) Proceedings of the 23rd National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 1, pp. 176–181. AAAI Press (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Spoletini, P., Verdicchio, M.: An Automata-Based Monitoring Technique for Commitment-Based Multi-Agent Systems. In: Hübner, J.F., Matson, E., Boissier, O., Dignum, V. (eds.) COIN 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5428, pp. 172–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tinnemeier, N.A.M., Dastani, M.M., Meyer, J.J.C., van der Torre, L.: Programming normative artifacts with declarative obligations and prohibitions. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, vol. 2, pp. 145–152. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J.: The role of norms and electronic institutions in multi-agent systems applied to complex domains: The HARMONIA framework. AI Communications 16(3), 209–212 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.: Implementing Norms in Multiagent Systems. In: Lindemann, G., Denzinger, J., Timm, I.J., Unland, R. (eds.) MATES 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3187, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: Communication languages for multiagent systems. Computational Intelligence 25(2), 136–159 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wallace, I., Rovatsos, M.: Bounded practical social reasoning in the ESB framework. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1097–1104. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Commitment Machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) Intelligent Agents VIII. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42, 227–253 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Cranefield
    • 1
  • Michael Winikoff
    • 1
  • Wamberto Vasconcelos
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations