Advertisement

A Formal Approach to Design and Reuse Agent and Multiagent Models

  • Vincent Hilaire
  • Olivier Simonin
  • Abder Koukam
  • Jacques Ferber
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3382)

Abstract

While there are many useful models of agents and multi-agent systems, they are typically defined in an informal way and applied in an ad-hoc fashion. Consequently, multi-agent system designers have been unable to fully exploit these models commonalities and specialise or reuse them for specific problems. In order to fully exploit these models and facilitate their reuse we propose a formal approach based upon organisational concepts. The formal notation is the result of the composition of Object-Z and statecharts. The semantics of this multi-formalisms is defined by transition systems. This operational semantics enables validation and verification of specifications. We present this approach through the specification of the satisfaction-altruism model which has been used to design situated multi-agent systems. We put the emphasis on the specification of a mobile robot architecture based on the refinement of this model. The availability of such generic models is a fundamental basis for reuse. We also show how to analyse the specification by validation and verification.

Keywords

Mobile Robot Multiagent System Formal Approach Operational Semantic Predicate Part 
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.
    Arkin, R.: Behavior Based Robotics. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergenti, F., Poggi, A.: Exploiting UML in the Design of Multi-Agent Systems. In: Omicini, A., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) Engineering Societies in the Agents’ World (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapelle, J., Simonin, O., Ferber, J.: How situated agents can learn to cooperate by monitoring their neighbors’ satisfaction. In: 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon, France, pp. 68–72 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeLoach, S.: Multiagent Systems Engineering: a Methodology and Language for Designing Agent Systems. In: Agent Oriented Information Systems 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duke, R., King, P., Rose, G., Smith, G.: The Object-Z specification language. Technical report, Software Verification Research Center, Departement of Computer Science, University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Demazeau, Y., Durfee, E., Jennings, N. (eds.) ICMAS 1998 (July 1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gruer, P., Hilaire, V., Koukam, A.: Heterogeneous formal specification based on object-z and state charts: semantics and verification. Journal of Systems and Software 70(1) (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruer, P., Hilaire, V., Koukam, A., Cetnarowicz, K.: A formal framework for multi-agent systems analysis and design. Expert Systems with Applications 23 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A visual formalism for complex systems. Science of Computer Programming 8(3), 231–274 (1987)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harel, D., Lachover, H., Naamad, A., Pnueli, A., Politi, M., Sherman, R., Shtull-Trauring, A., Trakhtenbrot, M.B.: Statemate: A working environment for the development of complex reactive systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 16(4), 403–414 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herlea, D.E., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J., Wijngaards, N.J.E.: Specification of Behavioural Requirements within Compositional Multi-agent System Design. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1647, pp. 8–27. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hilaire, V., Koukam, A., Gruer, P.: A mechanism for dynamic role playing. In: Kowalczyk, R., Müller, J.P., Tianfield, H., Unland, R. (eds.) NODe-WS 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2592, pp. 36–48. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hilaire, V., Koukam, A., Gruer, P., Müller, J.-P.: Formal specification and prototyping of multi-agent systems. In: Omicini, A., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1972, p. 114. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hilaire, V., Koukam, A., Simonin, O., Gruer, P.: Formal specification of role dynamics in agent organizations: Applications to the satisfaction-altruism model. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2003) (submitted)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A formal framework for agency and autonomy. In: Lesser, V., Gasser, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 254–260. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1995)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lucidarme, P., Simonin, O., Liégeois, A.: Implementation and evaluation of a satisfaction/altruism based architecture for multi-robot systems. In: International Conference of Robotics and Automation (ICRA 2002), Washington, USA, pp. 1007–1012 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A Formal Framework for Agency and Autonomy. In: Lesser, V., Gasser, L. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 254–260 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Manna, Z., Bjoerner, N., Browne, A., Chang, E.: STeP: The Stanford Temporal Prover. In: Mosses, P.D., Schwartzbach, M.I., Nielsen, M. (eds.) CAAP 1995, FASE 1995, and TAPSOFT 1995. LNCS, vol. 915, p. 793. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Manna, Z., Pnueli, A.: Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simonin, O., Ferber, J.: Modeling self satisfaction and altruism to handle action selection and reactive cooperation. In: 6th International Conference on the Simulation of Adaptive Behavior (SAB 2000), vol. 2, pp. 314–323 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simonin, O., Liegois, A., Rongier, P.: An architecture for reactive cooperation of mobile distributed robots. In: DARS 4 Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, Knoxville, TN, vol. 4, pp. 35–44. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Odell, J., Nodine, M., Levy, R.: A metamodel for agents, roles and groups. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 78–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steegmans, E., Weyns, D., Holvoet, T., Berbers, Y.: Designing roles for situated agents. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 109–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: A methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 1999), Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 69–76. ACM Press, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincent Hilaire
    • 1
  • Olivier Simonin
    • 1
  • Abder Koukam
    • 1
  • Jacques Ferber
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de Technologie de Belfort MontbéliardBelfort CedexFrance
  2. 2.LIRMM Université Montpellier II – CNRSMontpellier Cedex 5France

Personalised recommendations