Model checking communicative agent-based systems

Meyer, John‐Jules Ch.; Wang, Wei

doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2008.11.006

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It does not imply that an agent which has the same type of another agent will display the same behavior. This does not exclude the possibility to integrate deeper checks, for instance based on model checking such as [10].…”

Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering Multi-Agent Systems

Cossentino

Fallah-Seghrouchni²,

Winikoff

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This work presents an agent typing system, that differently than most of other proposals relies on notions that are typical of agent systems instead of relying on a functional approach. Specifically, we use commitments to define types. The proposed typing includes a notion of compatibility, based on subtyping, which allows for the safe substitution of agents to roles along an interaction that is ruled by a commitmentbased protocol. Type checking can be done dynamically when an agent enacts a role. The proposal is implemented in the 2COMM framework and exploits Java annotations. 2COMM is based on the Agent & Artifact meta-model, exploit JADE and CArtAgO, by using CArtAgO artifacts in order to reify commitment protocols.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Engineering Multi-Agent Systems

Cossentino

Fallah-Seghrouchni²,

Winikoff

2014

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because social semantics allow tracing the status of existing commitments at any point in time given observed actions [26] and verifying interacting agents [3,6,28]. In this sense, it is unlike mental semantics that specifies the semantics of communicative acts in terms of pre-and post-conditions contingent on so-called agent's mental states (e.g.…”

Section: Relevant Literature and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifiable Semantic Model for Agent Interactions Using Social Commitments

El-Menshawy

Bentahar

Dssouli

2010

Languages, Methodologies, and Development Tools for Multi-Agent Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Existing approaches about defining formal semantics of commitment usually consider operations as axioms or constrains on top of the commitment semantics, which fail to capture the meaning of interactions that are central to real-life business scenarios. Furthermore, existing semantic frameworks using different logics do not gather the full semantics of commitment operations and semantics of social commitments within the same framework. This paper develops a novel unified semantic model for social commitments and their operations. It proposes a logical model based on a new logic extending CT L * with commitments and operations to specify agent interactions. We also propose a new definition of assignment and delegation operations by considering the relationship between the original and new commitment contents. We prove that the proposed model satisfies some properties that are desirable when modeling agent interactions in MASs and introduce a NetBill protocol as a running example to clarify the automatic verification of this model. Finally, we present an implementation and report on experimental results of this protocol using the NuSMV and MCMAS symbolic model checkers.

show abstract

“…Most of the works concerning software engineering aspects of commitment protocol specification focus on the formal verification to help the protocol designer to get rid of or to enforce given behaviors, [20], [21], [22], [23], [9]. An aspect that is not to be underestimated is the realization of a development methodology for commitment protocols.…”

Section: Composition Of Coordination Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some Thoughts about Commitment Protocols

Baldoni

Baroglio

2013

Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies X

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-From the seminal paper by Singh [1], commitments protocols have been raising a lot of attention. The key feature of commitment protocols is their declarative nature, which allows specifying them in a way which abstracts away from any reference to the actual behaviour of the agents. By doing so, commitment protocols respect the autonomy of agents. After more than ten years from the introduction of commitments, it is time to ask (i) if a "commitment to do something" is the only kind of regulative norm, that we need in order to give a social semantics to a physical action, and (ii) if they realize what they promised. In this position paper we discuss these points.

show abstract

Model checking communicative agent-based systems

Cited by 23 publications

References 22 publications

Engineering Multi-Agent Systems

Engineering Multi-Agent Systems

Verifiable Semantic Model for Agent Interactions Using Social Commitments

Some Thoughts about Commitment Protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About