Advertisement

Using Agent-Based Modelling Approaches to Support the Development of Safety Policy for Systems of Systems

  • Martin Hall-May
  • Tim Kelly
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4166)

Abstract

A safety policy defines the set of rules that governs the safe interaction of agents operating together as part of a system of systems (SoS). Agent autonomy can give rise to unpredictable, and potentially undesirable, emergent behaviour. Deriving rules of safety policy requires an understanding of the capabilities of an agent as well as how its actions affect the environment and consequently the actions of others. Methods for multi-agent system design can aid in this understanding. Such approaches mention organisational rules. However, there is little discussion about how they are derived. This paper proposes modelling systems according to three viewpoints: an agent viewpoint, a causal viewpoint and a domain viewpoint. The agent viewpoint captures system capabilities and inter-relationships. The causal viewpoint describes the effect an agent’s actions has on its environment as well as inter-agent influences. The domain viewpoint models assumed properties of the operating environment.

Keywords

Safety Policy Accident Model Common Prior Assumption Agent Viewpoint Mars Climate Orbiter 
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.
    Boyd, J.R.: A discourse on winning and losing. Unpublished briefing, Air University Library, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, Report No. MU43947 (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall-May, M., Kelly, T.P.: Defining and decomposing safety policy for systems of systems. In: Winther, R., Gran, B.A., Dahll, G. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2005. LNCS, vol. 3688, pp. 37–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinstein, M.C., Toy, E.L., Sandberg, E.A., Neumann, P.J., Evans, J.S., Kuntz, K.M., Graham, J.D., Hammitt, J.K.: Modeling for health care and other policy decisions: Uses, roles, and validity. Value Health 4, 348–361 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeLaurentis, D.A., Callaway, R.K.: A system-of-systems perspective for future public policy. Review of Policy Research 21 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pynadath, D.V., Tambe, M.: Revisiting asimov’s first law: A response to the call to arms. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 307–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sørby, K.: Relationship between security and safety in a security-safety critical system: Safety consequences of security threats. Masters thesis, Norges Teknisk-Naturvitenskapelige Universitet, Trondheim, Norway (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N., Wooldridge, M.: Organizational rules as an abstraction for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. Journal of Knowledge and Software Engineering 11, 303–328 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kelly, T.P.: Arguing Safety—A Systematic Approach to Managing Safety Cases. D.Phil thesis, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keating, C., Rogers, R., Unal, R., Dryer, D., Sousa-Poza, A., Safford, R., Peterson, W., Rabadi, G.: System of systems engineering. Engineering Management Journal 15, 36–45 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Caffall, D.S., Michael, J.B.: System-of-systems design from an object-oriented paradigm. In: Proceedings of the Monterey Workshop: Radical Innovations of Software and Systems Engineering in the Future, Venice, Italy, U.S. Army Research Office, pp. 146–157 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pfaender, H., DeLaurentis, D., Mavris, D.: An object-oriented approach for conceptual design exploration of UAV-based system-of-systems. In: Proceedings of 2nd AIAA “Unmanned Unlimited” Conference, vol. 6521. AIAA, San Diego (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bauer, B., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.: Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent software systems. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 91–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cossentino, M., Potts, C.: PASSI: A process for specifying and implementing multi-agent systems using UML (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, M.: Problem Frames. Addison Wesley, Wokingham (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alexander, R., Hall-May, M., Despotou, G., Kelly, T.: Towards using simulation to evaluate safety policy for systems of systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Safety and Security in Multi-Agent Systems (SASEMAS 2005), Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 5–21 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stephenson, A.: Mars climate orbiter mishap investigation board: Phase i report. Technical report, NASA (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guarino, N., Welty, C.A.: A formal ontology of properties. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Knowledge Acquisition, Modeling and Management, pp. 97–112. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guha, R.V., Lenat, D.B.: Cyc: A midterm report. AI Magazine 11, 32–59 (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niles, I., Pease, A.: Towards a standard upper ontology. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems, pp. 2–9. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swartout, B., Patil, R., Knight, K., Russ, T.: Toward distributed use of large-scale ontologies. In: Proceedings of the 10th Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop, Banff, Alberta, Canada (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Valente, A., Holmes, D., Alvidrez, F.C.: Using ontologies to build web service-based architecture for airspace systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Protégé Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perrow, C.: Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leveson, N.G.: A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science 42 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koller, D., Milch, B.: Structured models for multi-agent interactions. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, Siena, Italy, pp. 233–248. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Hall-May
    • 1
  • Tim Kelly
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations