Implementing Validated Agents Behaviours with Automata Based on Goal Decomposition Trees

  • Gaële Simon
  • Marianne Flouret
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3950)


In order to provide an effective tool allowing to implement validated agents behaviours, this paper first presents a Goal Decomposition Tree (GDT), a model to specify behaviours both in procedural and declarative ways. A GDT allows the designer to verify the specified behaviour. This model is then used to generate a behaviour automaton using automata composition patterns associated to operators used in the tree. This process allows to obtain a finite expression representing all valid behaviours of agents of a MAS.


Multiagent System Satisfaction Condition Composition Pattern Parent Goal Intermediate Goal 
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.
    Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., Wooldridge, M.: Verifiable Multi-agent Programs. In: Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3067, pp. 72–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caron, P., Flouret, M.: From Glushkov WFAs to rational expressions. In: Ésik, Z., Fülöp, Z. (eds.) DLT 2003. LNCS, vol. 2710, pp. 373–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Caron, P., Flouret, M.: Glushkov construction for series: The non commutative case. Int. J. Comput. Math. 4(80), 457–472 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deloach, S.A., Sparkman, C.H., Self, A.L.: Automated derivation of complex agent architectures from analysis specifications. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Culik, K., Kari, J.: Image compression using weighted finite automata. In: Rozenberg, G., Salomaa, A. (eds.) Handbook of formal languages, pp. 599–616. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deloach, S.A., Wood, M.F., Sparkman, C.H.: Multiagent systems engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11(3), 231–258 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ferber, J.: Les systèmes multi-agents. InterEditions (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fournier, D., Flouret, M., Simon, G., Mermet, B.: The provable Goal Decomposition Tree: a behaviour model of an agent. Technical report, LIH - Univ. of Le Havre (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaelbling, L.P.: Goals as parallel program specifications. In: Proceedings, AAAI 1988, St Paul, MN, pp. 60–65 (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamport, L.: The temporal logic of actions. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burkhard, H.-D., Lötzsch, M., Bach, J., Jüngel, M.: Designing Agent Behavior with the Extensible Agent Behavior Specification Language XABSL. In: Polani, D., Browning, B., Bonarini, A., Yoshida, K. (eds.) RoboCup 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3020, pp. 114–124. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mermet, B., Fournier, D.: Variant extensions to prove MAS behaviours. In: Bussler, C.J., Fensel, D. (eds.) AIMSA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3192, Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mermet, B., Simon, G., Fournier, D., Flouret, M.: SPACE: A Method to Increase Tracability in MAS Development. In: Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. (eds.) PROMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3067, pp. 201–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dastani, M., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Dynamics of declarative goals in agent programming. In: Leite, J.A., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vardi, M.Y., Wolper, P.: An automata-theoretic approach to automatic program verification. In: Symposium on Logics In Computer Science (LICS 1986), pp. 332–344 (1986)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vincent, R., Horling, B., Lesser, V.: An agent infrastructure to build and evaluate multi-agent systems: the java agent framework and multi-agent system simulator. In: Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scalable Multi-Agent Systems (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Winikoff, M., Padham, L., Harland, J., Thamgarajah, J.: Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR2002) (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gaële Simon
    • 1
  • Marianne Flouret
    • 1
  1. 1.LIHUniversité du HavreLe HavreFrance

Personalised recommendations