Advertisement

Using Theorem Proving to Verify Properties of Agent Programs

  • N. Alechina
  • M. Dastani
  • F. Khan
  • B. Logan
  • J.-J. Ch. Meyer
Chapter

Abstract

We present a sound and complete logic for automatic verification of simpleAPL programs. simpleAPL is a simplified version of agent programming languages such as 3APL and 2APL designed for the implementation of cognitive agents with beliefs, goals and plans. Our logic is a variant of PDL, and allows the specification of safety and liveness properties of agent programs. We prove a correspondence between the operational semantics of simpleAPL and the models of the logic for two example program execution strategies. We show how to translate agent programs written in simpleAPL into expressions of the logic, and give an example in which we show how to verify correctness properties for a simple agent program using theorem-proving.

Keywords

Operational Semantic Agent Program Liveness Property Execution Strategy Propositional Dynamic 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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank to Renate Schmidt for help with MSPASS and PDL-TABLEAU. Natasha Alechina and Brian Logan were supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant number EP/E031226].

References

  1. 66.
    Bordini, R.H., Dennis, L.A., Farwer, B., Fisher, M.: Directions for agent model checking. In: this volume, Chapter 4Google Scholar
  2. 395.
    Shapiro, S., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.J.: The cognitive agents specification language and verification environment for multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’02), pp. 19–26 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 383.
    Scherl, R.B., Levesque, H.J.: Knowledge, action, and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144(1–2), 1–39 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 370.
    van Riemsdijk, M., de Boer, F., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Prototyping 3apl in the maude term rewriting language. In: Proceedings of the seventh International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA 2006), LNAI, vol. 4371. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 149.
    van Ditmarsch, H.P., Herzig, A., De Lima, T.: Optimal regression for reasoning about knowledge and actions. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 1070–1075. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 174.
    Fisher, M.: MetateM: The Story so Far. In: Proc. 3rd International Workshop on Programming Multiagent Systems (ProMAS), LNAI, vol. 3862, pp. 3–22. Springer Verlag (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 126.
    Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Correctness of multi-agent programs: A hybrid approach. In: this volume, Chapter 6Google Scholar
  8. 7.
    Alechina, N., Dastani, M., Logan, B., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Reasoning about agent deliberation. In: G. Brewka, J. Lang (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’08), pp. 16–26. AAAI, Sydney, Australia (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 421.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Astefanoaei, L., de Boer, F.S.: Using the Maude term rewriting language for agent development with formal foundations. In: this volume, Chapter 11Google Scholar
  10. 246.
    Hustadt, U., Schmidt, R.A.: MSPASS : Modal reasoning by translation and first-order resolution. In: Proc. TABLEAUX 2000, LNCS, vol. 1847, pp. 67–71. Springer (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 386.
    Schmidt, R.A.: pdl-tableau (2003). http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/schmidt/pdl-tableau
  12. 21.
    Astefanoaei, L., Dastani, M., de Boer, F., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A verification framework for normative multi-agent systems. In: In the proceedings of The 11th Pacific Rim International Conference on Multi-Agents (PRIMA 2008), LNAI, vol. 5357. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 210.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 128.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A programming language for cognitive agents: Goal directed 3APL . In: Proc. ProMAS 2003, LNCS, vol. 3067, pp. 111–130. Springer (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 127.
    Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A practical agent programming language. In: M. Dastani, A.E. Fallah-Seghrouchni, A. Ricci, M. Winikoff (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Programming Multi-agent Systems ( ProMAS ’07), LNCS, vol. 4908, pp. 107–123. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 47.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 53. Cambridge University Press (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 64.
    Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.): Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Springer-Verlag (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 6.
    Alechina, N., Dastani, M., Logan, B., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A logic of agent programs. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2007), pp. 795–800. AAAI Press (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 75.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Vieira, R.: Jason and the Golden Fleece of agent-oriented programming. In: R.H. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, A. El Fallah Seghrouchni (eds.) Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications, chap. 1. Springer-Verlag (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 218.
    Hindriks, K., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Agent logics as program logics: Grounding KARO . In: Proc. 29th German Conference on AI (KI 2006), LNAI, vol. 4314. Springer (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 173.
    Fischer, M.J., Ladner, R.E.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 290.
    Lomuscio, A., Raimondi, F.: Mcmas: A model checker for multi-agent systems. In: Proc. TACAS 2006 , pp. 450–454 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 234.
    van der Hoek, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a logic of rational agency. Logic Journal of the IGPL 11(2), 133–157 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 1.
    Abrahamson, K.R.: Decidability and expressiveness of logics of processes. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Washington (1980)Google Scholar
  25. 130.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A grounded specification language for agent programs. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’07), pp. 578–585. IFAAMAS, Honolulu, Hawaii (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 357.
    Rao, A.S.: AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: W.V. de Velde, J. Perrame (eds.) Agents Breaking Away: Proceedings of the Seventh European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW’96), pp. 42–55. Springer Verlag, LNAI 1038 (1996)Google Scholar
  27. 73.
    Bordini, R.H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., Wooldridge, M.: Verifying Multi-Agent Programs by Model Checking . Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 12(2), 239–256 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 393.
    Shapiro, S., Lesperance, Y., Levesque, H.: The cognitive agent specification language and verification environment. In: this volume, Chapter 9Google Scholar
  29. 122.
    Dastani, M.: 2APL : A practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 16(3), 214–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 169.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA (1995)MATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 34.
    Benerecetti, M., Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Model checking multiagent systems. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 401–423 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Alechina
    • 1
  • M. Dastani
    • 2
  • F. Khan
    • 1
  • B. Logan
    • 1
  • J.-J. Ch. Meyer
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Nottingham, School of Computer ScienceNottinghamUK
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations