Advertisement

Correctness of Multi-Agent Programs: A Hybrid Approach

  • M. Dastani
  • J.-J. Ch. Meyer
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter proposes a twofold approach for ensuring the correctness of BDI-based agent programs. On the one hand, we advocate the alignment of the semantics of agent programming languages with agent specification languages such that for an agent programming language it can be shown that it obeys specific desirable properties expressed in the corresponding agent specification language. In this way, one can guarantee that specific properties expressed in the specification language are satisfied by any program implemented in the programming language. On the other hand, we introduce a debugging framework to find and resolve possible defects in such agent programs. The debugging approach consists of a specification language and a set of debugging tools. The specification language allows a developer to express cognitive and temporal properties of multi-agent program executions. The debugging tools allow a developer to verify if a specific multi-agent program execution satisfies a desirable property.

Keywords

Transition Rule Program Execution Belief Base Execution Trace Commitment Strategy 
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 Birna van Riemsdijk for her contribution to work on which this chapter is partly based.

  1. 437.
    Winkelhagen, L., Dastani, M., Broersen, J.: Beliefs in agent implementation. In: Proceedings DALT 2005, LNCS 3904. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 110.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 224.
    Hindriks, K.V., de Boer, F.S., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Agent programming with declarative goals. In: C. Castelfranchi, Y. Lespérance (eds.) Intelligent Agents VII. Agent Theories Architectures and Languages, 7th International Workshop, ATAL 2000, Boston, MA, USA, July 7-9, 2000, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1986, pp. 228–243. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 345.
    Poutakidis, D., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Debugging multi-agent systems using design artifacts: The case of interaction protocols. In: In Proceedings of AAMAS-02, pp. 960–967 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 385.
    Schild, K.: On the relationship between BDI-logics and standard logics of concurrency. Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems 3, 259–283 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 158.
    Emerson, E., Halpern, J.: ”sometimes” and “not never” revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM 33(1), 151–178 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 315.
    Meyer, J.-J Ch., van der Hoek, W., van Linder, B.: A Logical Approach to the Dynamics of Commitments. Artificial Intelligence 113(1-2), 1–40 (1999)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 65.
    Bordini, R.H., Dastani, M., Dix, J., El Fallah Seghrouchni, A. (eds.): Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Tools and Applications. Springer-Verlag (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 371.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., de Boer, F.S., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Prototyping 3apl in the maude term rewriting language. In: AAMAS, pp. 1279–1281 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 343.
    Pokahr, A., Braubach, L., Lamersdorf, W.: Jadex: A BDI reasoning engine. chap. 6, pp. 149–174Google Scholar
  13. 433.
    Winikoff, M.: JACK™ intelligent agents: An industrial strength platform. In: Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Kluwer (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 129.
    Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Goal types in agent programming. In: Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Artifical Intelligence 2006 (ECAI’06), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 141, pp. 220–224. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 32.
    Bellifemine, F., Bergenti, F., Caire, G., Poggi, A.: JADE - a java agent development framework. In: Multi-Agent Programming: Languages, Platforms and Applications. Kluwer (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 77.
    Bordini, R.H., Moreira, A.F.: Proving the asymmetry thesis principles for a BDI agent-oriented programming language. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 70(5) (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 131.
    Dastani, M., Tinnemeier, N.A.M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A programming language for normative multi-agent systems. In: V. Dignum (ed.) Multi-Agent Systems: Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, chap. 16. IGI Global (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 114.
    Collier, R.: Debugging agents in agent factory. ProMAS 2006 pp. 229–248 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 372.
    van Riemsdijk, M.B., Meyer, J.-J. Ch., de Boer, F.S.: Semantics of plan revision in intelligent agents. Theoretical Computer Science 351(2), 240–257 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 60.
    de Boer, F.S., Hindriks, K.V., van der Hoek, W., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A Verification Framework for Agent Programming with Declarative Goals. Journal of Applied Logic 5(2), 277–302 (2007)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 425.
    Vigueras, G., Botía, J.A.: Tracking causality by visualization of multi-agent interactions using causality graphs. ProMAS 2007 pp. 190–204 (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 219.
    Hindriks, K., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Toward a programming theory for rational agents. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (special issue FAMAS 2006) 19, 4–29 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 188.
    Garcia-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A.: Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’05), pp. 667–673. ACM Press (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 410.
    Sudeikat, J., Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W., Renz, W.: Validation of BDI agents. ProMAS 2006 pp. 185–200 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 439.
    Wooldridge, M.: Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 121.
    D. N. Lam, K.S.B.: Debugging agent behavior in an implemented agent system. ProMAS 2004 pp. 104–125 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 61.
    Bordini, R., Fisher, M., Pardavila, C., Wooldridge, M.: Model checking AgentSpeak. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS’03), pp. 409–416 (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 84.
    Botía, J.A., Hernansaez, J.M., Gómez-Skarmeta, A.F.: On the application of clustering techniques to support debugging large-scale multi-agent systems. In: PROMAS, pp. 217–227 (2006)Google Scholar
  30. 28.
    Bauer, A., Leucker, M., Schallhart, C.: Comparing LTL semantics for runtime verification. Journal of Logic and Computation In print (2009)Google Scholar
  31. 243.
    Hubner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: Developing organised multiagent systems using the moise+ model: programming issues at the system and agent levels. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Softw. Eng. 1(3/4), 370–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 346.
    Poutakidis, D., Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: An exploration of bugs and debugging in multi-agent systems. In: In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS), pp. 628–632. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  34. 166.
    Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J., Rosell, B., Arcos, J.: Ameli: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proc. of AAMAS’04. New York, US (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 360.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: J. Allen, R. Fikes, E. Sandewall (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR’91), pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc.: San Mateo, CA, USA (1991)Google Scholar
  36. 8.
    Alechina, N., Logan, B., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: Reasoning about agent execution strategies. In: AAMAS (3), pp. 1455–1458 (2008)Google Scholar
  37. 122.
    Dastani, M.: 2APL: A practical agent programming language. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 16(3), 214–248 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 63.
    Bordini, R., Wooldridge, M., Hübner, J.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak using Jason. John Wiley & Sons (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 325.
    Nwana, H.S., Ndumu, D.T., Lee, L.C., Collis, J.C.: ZEUS. a toolkit for building distributed multi-agent systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal 13(1), 129–185 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations