Advertisement

A Formal Analysis of Pro-Activeness and Reactiveness in Cooperative Information Gathering

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Part of the Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems book series (HAND, volume 6)

Abstract

When designing multi-agent systems, it is often hard to guarantee that the specification of a system that has been designed actually fulfils the needs, i.e., whether it satisfies the design requirements. Especially for critical applications, for example in real-time domains, there is a need to prove that the designed system will have certain properties under certain conditions (assumptions). While developing a proof of such properties, the assumptions that define the bounds within which the system will function properly are generated. For nontrivial examples, verification can be a very complex process, both in the conceptual and computational sense. For these reasons, it is a recent trend in the literature on verification in general to study the use of compositionality and abstraction to structure the process of verification; for example, see [Abadi and Lamport, 1993], [Hooman, 1994], [Dams et al., 1996].

Keywords

Interaction Effectiveness Abstraction Level Information Provision Information Type Behavioural Property 
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.

Bibliography

  1. [Abadi and Lamport, 1993]
    M. Abadi and L. Lamport. Composing Specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 15 (1), 73–132, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [Benjamins et al.,1996]
    R. Benjamins, D. Fensel and R. Straatman. Assumptions of problem-solving methods and their role in knowledge engineering. In: W. Wahlster (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on AI, ECAI’96,John Wiley and Sons, 408–412, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. [Brazier et al.,1995]
    F.M.T. Brazier, B. Dunin-Keplicz, N.R. Jennings and J. Treur. Formal specification of Multi-Agent Systems: a real-world case. In: V. Lesser (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS-95,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 25–32, 1995. Extended version in: International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems,M. Huhns, M. Singh, (eds.), special issue on Formal Methods in Cooperative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, 6, 67–94, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [Brazier et al.,1998]
    F.M.T. Brazier, J. Treur, N.J.E. Wijngaards and M. Willems. Principles of compositional multi-agent system design. In Proceedngs of the 15th IFIP World Computer Congress, WCC 98, subconference IT & KNOWS, J. Cuena (ed.), 1998. IOS Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [Brazier et al.,1999]
    F.M.T. Brazier, J. Treur, N.J.E. Wijngaards and M. Willems. Temporal semantics of compositional task models nd problem solving methods. Data and Knowledge Engineering,29(1), 17–42,1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [Comelissen et al.,1997]
    F. Comelissen, C.M. Jonker and J. Treur. Compositional verification of knowledge-based systems: a case study in diagnostic reasoning. In: E.Plaza, R. Benjamins (eds.), Knowledge Acquisition, Modelling and Management, Proc. of the 10th EKAW,Lecture Notes in AI,1319,Springer Verlag, 65–80, 1997. See also this volume.Google Scholar
  7. [Dams et al.,1996]
    D. Dams, R. Gerth and P. Kelb. Practical Symbolic Model Checking of the full p-calculus using Compositional Abstractions. Report, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  8. [Engelfriet et al.,1997]
    J. Engelfriet, C.M. Jonker and J. Treur. Compositional Verification of Multiagent Systems in Temporal Epistemic Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information,to appear, 2001.Google Scholar
  9. [Fensel, 1995]
    D. Fensel. Assumptions and limitations of a problem solving method: a case study. In: B.R. Gaines, M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’95, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. [Fensel et al., 1996]
    D. Fensel and R. Benjamins. Assumptions in model-based diagnosis. In: B.R. Gaines, M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’96, Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 5/1–5/18, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. Fensel et al.,1996] D. Fensel, A. Schonegge, R. Groenboom and B. Wielinga. Specification and verification of knowledge-based systems. In: B.R. Gaines, M.A. Musen (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-based Systems workshop, KAW’96,Calgary: SRDG Publications, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, 4/1–4/20, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. [Fisher and Wooldridge, 1997]
    M. Fisher and M. Wooldridge. On the Formal Specification and Verification of Multi-Agent Systems. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, M. Huhns, M. Singh, (eds.), special issue on Formal Methods in Cooperative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems, 6, 67–94, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. [Harmelen and Fensen, 1995]
    F. van Harmelen and D. Fensel. Formal Methods in Knowledge Engineering. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10 (4), 1995.Google Scholar
  14. [Hooman, 1994]
    J. Hooman. Compositional Verification of a Distributed Real-Time Arbitration Protocol. Real-Time Systems, 6, 173–206, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Kinny et al.,1994]
    D. Kinny, M.P. Georgeff and A.S. Rao. A Methodology and Technique for Systems of BDI Agents. In: W. van der Velde, J.W. Perram (eds.), Agents Breaking Away, Proceedings 7th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, MAAMAW’96,Lecture Notes in AI,1038 Springer Verlag, 56–71, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. [Langevelde et al.,1992]
    I.A. van Langevelde, A. Philipsen and J. Treur. Formal Specification of Compositional Architectures. In B. Neumann (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Al, ECAI’92,Wiley and Sons, 272–276, 1992.Google Scholar
  17. [Leemans et al.,1993] P.Leemans, J. Treur and M. Willems. On the verification of knowledge-based reasoning modules, Report IR-346, Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, AI Group, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1993.Google Scholar
  18. [Rao and Georgeff, 1991]
    A.S. Rao and M.P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture. In: R. Fikes and E. Sandewall (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufman, 473–484, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. [Treur and Willems, 1994]
    J. Treur and M. Willems. A logical foundation for verification. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on AI, ECA’94, A. Cohn (ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 745–749, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. [Wooldridge and Jennings, 1995]
    M. Wooldridge and N.R. Jennings (eds.). Intelligent Agents. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages. Lecture Notes in AI, 890, Springer Verlag, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations