Reuse and Abstraction in Verification: Agents Acting in Dynamic Environments

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
  • Wieke de Vries
Part of the Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems book series (HAND, volume 7)


Verification of agent systems is generally not an easy task. As agents may operate in a world that is constantly changing, and agent systems can consist of a number of interacting but independent agents, expressing behavioural requirements may lead to complex formulae. Nevertheless, verification is important, because it is the only way to guarantee that demands made on aspects of the system behaviour are satisfied. The high degree of complexity of agent system behaviour is as much the reason as the problem here: by simply checking the code of the agent system or by testing, proper behaviour can never be sufficiently established. Proper functioning is often crucial, because agent systems are increasingly employed in circumstances where mistakes have important consequences, for example in electronic commerce. But in practice, verification of agent systems is hardly ever done, because it is intricate.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Barringer et al.,1986]
    H. Barringer, R. Kuiper and A. Pnueli. A really abstract concurrent model and its temporal logic. In Conference Record of the 15th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL’86,pp. 173–183, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. [Benthem, 1983]
    J. F. A. K. van Benthem. The Logic of Time: A Model-Theoretic Investigation into the Varieties of Temporal Ontology and Temporal Discourse, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. [Brazier et al.,1998]
    ] F. M. T. Brazier, F. Cornelissen, R. Gustaysson, C. M. Jonker, O. Lindeberg, B. Polak and J. Treur. Compositional design and verification of a multi-agent system for one-tomany negotiation. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS’98. pp. 49–56. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. [Brazier et al.,1997]
    ] E. M. T. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, N. R. Jennings and J. Treur. DESIRE: modelling multi-agent systems in a compositional formal framework. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems,M. Huhns and M. Singh, eds. Special issue on Formal Methods in Cooperative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, 6 67–94, 1997. Preliminary and shorter version in ICMAS’95.Google Scholar
  5. [Brazier et al.,2000]
    F. M. T. Brazier, C. M. Jonker and J. Treur. Compositional design of multi-agent systems: modelling dynamics and control. In this volume.Google Scholar
  6. [Chang and Keisler, 1973]
    C. C. Chang and H. J. Keisler. Model Theory, North Holland, 1973.Google Scholar
  7. [Engelfriet et al.,1999]
    J. Engelfriet, C. M. Jonker and J. Treur. Compositional verification of multi-agent systems in temporal multi-epistemic logic. In this volume. Preliminary version in Intelligent Agents V. Agents Theories, Architectures, and Languages,J. P. Mueller, M. P. Singh and A. S. Rao, eds. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1555, Springer Verlag, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [Hodges, 1993]
    W. Hodges. Model Theory, Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  9. [Jonker and Treur, 1998]
    C. M. Jonker and J. Treur. Compositional verification of multi-agent Systems: a formal analysis of pro-activeness and reactiveness. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Compositionality, COMPOS’97, W. P. de Roever, H. Langmaack and A. Pouch, eds. pp. 350–380. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, Springer Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. [Jonker et al.,1998]
    ] C. M. Jonker, J. Treur and W. de Vries. Compositional verification of agents in dynamic environments: a case study. In Proc. of the KR98 Workshop on Verification and Validation of KBS,E. van Harmelen, ed. 1998.Google Scholar
  11. [Lukasiewicz and Madalinska-Bugaj, 2000]
    W. Lukaszewicz and E. Madalinska-Bugaj. Reasoning about action and change: actions with abnormal effects. In this volume.Google Scholar
  12. [McCarthy and Hayes, 1969]
    J. McCarthy and P. J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4, 463 – 502, 1969.Google Scholar
  13. [Reiter, 1991]
    R. Reiter. The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression. In Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, V. Lifschitz, ed. pp. 359–360. Academic Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. [Reiter, 1993]
    R. Reiter. Proving properties of states in the situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 64, 337 – 351, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Sandewall, 1994]
    E. Sandewall. Features and Fluents. The Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems, Volume I, Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  • Wieke de Vries
    • 1
  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations