Abstract
We present an abstraction technique for model checking multi-agent systems given as modular interpreted systems (\(\textsc{MIS}\) ) (introduced by Jamroga and Ågotnes). \(\textsc{MIS}\) allow for succinct representations of compositional systems, they permit agents to be removed, added or replaced and they are modular by facilitating control over the amount of interaction. Specifications are given as arbitrary \(\textsc{ATL}\) formulae: We can therefore reason about strategic abilities of groups of agents.
Our technique is based on collapsing each agent’s local state space with handcrafted equivalence relations, one per strategic modality. We present a model checking algorithm and prove its soundness: This makes it possible to perform model checking on abstractions (which are much smaller in size) rather than on the concrete system which is usually too complex, thereby saving space and time. We illustrate our technique with an example in a scenario of autonomous agents exchanging information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alur, R., Henzinger, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM 49(5), 672–713 (2002)
Ball, T., Rajamani, S.: Boolean programs: A model and process for software analysis. Tech. Rep. 2010-14 (2000)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Jha, S., Lu, Y., Veith, H.: Counterexample-guided abstraction refinement for symbolic model checking. J. ACM 50(5), 752–794 (2003)
Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., Long, D.E.: Model checking and abstraction. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 16(5), 1512–1542 (1994)
Clarke, E., Grumberg, O., Peled, D.: Model checking. Springer (1999)
Cohen, M., Dam, M., Lomuscio, A., Russo, F.: Abstraction in model checking multi-agent systems. In: AAMAS (2), pp. 945–952 (2009)
Das, S., Dill, D.: Successive approximation of abstract transition relations. In: Proceedings of 16th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science 2001, pp. 51–58. IEEE (2002)
Dechesne, F., Orzan, S., Wang, Y.: Refinement of Kripke Models for Dynamics. In: Fitzgerald, J.S., Haxthausen, A.E., Yenigun, H. (eds.) ICTAC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5160, pp. 111–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85762-4_8
Deiters, C., Köster, M., Lange, S., Lützel, S., Mokbel, B., Mumme, C., Niebuhr, D. (eds.): DemSy - A Scenario for an Integrated Demonstrator in a SmartCity. Tech. Rep. 2010/01, NTH Focused Research School for IT Ecosystems, Clausthal University of Technology (May 2010), http://www.gbv.de/dms/clausthal/H_BIB/IfI/NTH_CompSciRep/2010-01.pdf
Emerson, E., Halpern, J.: “Sometimes” and ”not never” revisited: On branching versus linear time temporal logic. In: Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, vol. 33(1), pp. 151–178 (1986)
Enea, C., Dima, C.: Abstractions of Multi-agent Systems. In: Burkhard, H.-D., Lindemann, G., Verbrugge, R., Varga, L.Z. (eds.) CEEMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4696, pp. 11–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2007), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75254-7_2
Halpern, J.Y., Fagin, R.: Modelling knowledge and action in distributed systems. Distributed Computing 3, 159–177 (1989), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01784885
Halpern, J., Fagin, R., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about knowledge. Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming 4 (1995)
Henzinger, T.A., Jhala, R., Majumdar, R.: Counterexample-Guided Control. In: Baeten, J.C.M., Lenstra, J.K., Parrow, J., Woeginger, G.J. (eds.) ICALP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2719, pp. 886–902. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Henzinger, T.A., Majumdar, R., Mang, F.Y.C., Raskin, J.-F.: Abstract Interpretation of Game Properties. In: SAS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1824, pp. 220–240. Springer, Heidelberg (2000), http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=647169.718154
Jamroga, W., Ågotnes, T.: Modular interpreted systems: A preliminary report. Tech. Rep. IfI-06-15, Clausthal University of Technology (2006)
Jamroga, W., Ågotnes, T.: Modular interpreted systems. In: Durfee, E.H., Yokoo, M., Huhns, M.N., Shehory, O. (eds.) Proceedings of AAMAS 2007, pp. 892–899. ACM Press (2007)
Kupferman, O., Vardi, M.Y.: An automata-theoretic approach to modular model checking. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 22, 87–128 (2000), http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/345099.345104
Kurshan, R.: Computer-aided verification of coordinating processes: the automata-theoretic approach. Princeton Univ. Press (1994)
McMillan, K.L.: Applying SAT Methods in Unbounded Symbolic Model Checking. In: Brinksma, E., Larsen, K.G. (eds.) CAV 2002. LNCS, vol. 2404, pp. 250–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2002), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45657-0_19
McMillan, K.: Symbolic model checking: An Approach to the State Explosion Problem. Kluwer Academic Publishers Norwell, MA (1993)
Wooldridge, M.: Computationally grounded theories of agency. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS 2000 (2000), http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICMAS.2000.858426
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Köster, M., Lohmann, P. (2012). Abstraction for Model Checking Modular Interpreted Systems over ATL. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds) Programming Multi-Agent Systems. ProMAS 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7217. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31915-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31915-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31914-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31915-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)