Systematic verification of multi-agent systems based on rigorous executable specifications

International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 28-62

  Giese, Holger ^a   Klein, Florian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PADERBORN   (Germany)

Author keywords

executable specifications; formal verification; MAS; model checking; Multi Agent System; simulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 56749103285     PISSN: 17461375     EISSN: 17461383     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJAOSE.2007.013264     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Baldan, P., Konig, B. and Rensink, A. (2005) ‘Graph grammar verification through abstraction (Summary 2)’, Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 04241.
2. Baresi, L., Heckel, R., Thone, S. and Varro, D. (2003) ‘Modeling and validation of service-oriented architectures: application vs. style’, Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference Held Jointly with 10th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, ACM Press, pp.68–77.
3. Bauer, B. and Müller, J.P. (2003) ‘Using UML in the context of agent-oriented software engineering: state of the art’, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering IV, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Springer Verlag, Vol. 2935, pp.1–24.
4. Bauer, B. and Odell, J. (2005) ‘UML 2.0 and agents: how to build agent-based systems with the new UML standard’, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 18, pp.141–157.
5. Becker, B., Beyer, D., Giese, H., Klein, F. and Schilling, D. (2006) ‘Symbolic invariant verification for systems with dynamic structural adaptation’, Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Shanghai, China: ACM Press, pp.1–10.
6. Benerecetti, M. and Cimattis, A. (2003) ‘Validation of multi-agent systems by symbolic model checking’, in F. Giunchiglia, J. Odell and G. Weiss (Eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering III: Third International Workshop, AOSE 2002, Bologna, Italy, July 2002, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, Germany, Vol. 2585, pp.32–46.
7. Brazier, F.M.T., Cornelissen, F., Gustavsson, R., Jonker, C.M., Lindeberg, O., Polak, B. and Treur, J. (2004) ‘Compositional verification of a multi-agent system for one-to-many negotiation’, Appl. Intell., Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.95–117.
8. Brazier, F.M.T., Dunin-Keplicz, B.M., Jennings, N.R. and Treur, J. (1997) ‘DESIRE: modelling multi-agent systems in a compositional formal framework’, Int. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.67–94.
9. Bresciani, P. and Giorgini, P. (2002) ‘The TROPOS analysis process as graph transformation system’, OOP-SLA 2002 Workshop on Agent-Oriented Methodologies, COTAR.
10. Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J. and Perini, A. (2003) ‘TROPOS: an agent-oriented software development methodology’, Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
11. Broekman, B. and Notenboom, E. (2003) Testing Embedded Software, Addison-Wesley.
12. Burmester, S., Giese, H. and Tichy, M. (2005) ‘Model-driven development of reconfigurable mechatronic systems with mechatronic UML’, in U. Assmann, A. Rensink and M. Aksit (Eds.) Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Vol. 3599, pp.47–61.
13. Charpentier, M. (2003) ‘Composing invariants’, FME 2003: Formal Methods: International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe Pisa, Italy, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, Vol. 2805, pp.401–421.
14. Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O. and Peled, D. (2000) Model Checking, MIT Press.
15. Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O. and Michel, F. (2003) ‘From agents to organizations: an organizational view of multi-agent systems’, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering IV, 4th International Workshop, AOSE 2003, Melbourne, Australia, July 15, 2003, Revised Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Vol. 2935, pp.214–230.
16. Giese, H., Burmester, S., Klein, F., Schilling, D. and Tichy, M. (2003a) ‘Multi-agent system design for safety-critical self-optimizing mechatronic systems with UML’, OOPSLA 2003 - Second International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Methodologies, Anaheim, California.
17. Giese, H., Tichy, M., Burmester, S., Schafer, W. and Flake, S. (2003b) ‘Towards the compositional verification of real-time UML designs’, Proceedings of the 9th European Software Engineering Conference held Jointly with 11th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE-11), ACM Press, pp.38–47.
18. Giese, H. and Vilbig, A. (2006) ‘Separation of non-orthogonal concerns in software architecture and design’, Software and System Modeling (SoSyM), Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.136–169.
19. Hailpern, B. and Santhanam, P. (2002) ‘Software debugging, testing, and verification’, IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1.
20. Kinny, D. and Georgeff, M. (1996) ‘Modelling and design of multi-agent systems’, Proceedings of ATAL 96.
21. Klein, F. and Giese, H. (2005) ‘Separation of concerns for mechatronic multi-agent systems through dynamic communities’, in R. Choren, A. Garcia, C. Lucena and A. Romanovsky (Eds.) Software Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems III: Research Issues and Practical Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), Springer Verlag, Vol. 3390, pp.272–289.
22. Klein, F. and Giese, H. (2006a) ‘Analysis and design of physical and social contexts in multiagent systems using UML’, in R. Choren, A. Garcia, C. Lucena, A. Romanovsky, T. Holvoet and P. Giorgini (Eds.) Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Software Engineering for Large-Scale Multi-Agent Systems (in Conjunction with the International Conference on Software Engineering), St. Louis, MO, USA, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Vol. 3914, pp.1–18.
23. Klein, F. and Giese, H. (2006b) ‘Grounding social interactions in the environment’, in D. Weyns, V. Parunak and F. Michel (Eds.) Environments for Multiagent Systems II, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, Vol. 3830, pp.139–162.
24. Klein, F. and Giese, H. (2006c) ‘Integrated visual specification of structural and temporal properties’, Technical Report tr-ri-06–277, Computer Science Department, University of Paderborn, October.
25. Köhler, H., Nickel, U., Niere, J. and Ziindorf, A. (2000) ‘Integrating UML diagrams for production control systems’, in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Limerick, Ireland: ACM Press, pp.241–251.
26. Padgham, L., Winikoff, M. and Poutakidis, D. (2005) ‘Adding debugging support to the prometheus methodology’, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 18, pp.173–190.
27. Rensink, A. (2003) ‘Towards model checking graph grammars’, in M. Leuschel, S. Gruner and S.L. Presti (Eds.) Workshop on Automated Verification of Critical Systems (AVoCS), Technical Report DSSE-TR-2003–2, University of Southampton, pp.150–160.
28. Rozenberg, G. (Ed.) (1997) Handbook of Graph Grammars and Computing by Graph Transformation: Foundations, World Scientific Pub. Co., Vol. 1.
29. Singh, M.P. (1998) ‘Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles’, IEEE Computer, Vol. 31, No. 12, pp.40–47.
30. van der Hoek, W., Roberts, M. and Wooldridge, M. (2005) ‘Knowledge and social laws’, in F. Dignum, V. Dignum, S. Koenig, S. Kraus, M.P. Singh and M. Wooldridge (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), Utrecht, the Netherlands: ACM Press, pp.674–681.
31. Wood, M.F. and DeLoach, S.A. (2001) ‘An overview of the multi-agent systems engineering methodology’, Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: First International Workshop, AOSE 2000, Limerick, Ireland, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, Vol. 1957, pp.207–221.
32. Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N. and Kenny, D. (1999) ‘A methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design’, in M. Woodridge and N. Jennings (Eds.) Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents, Seattle, Washington, pp.69–76.
33. Attributes can be substituted by associations (as done explicitly for the traffic-light state) and cardinalities can be encoded as structural invariants (as in Figure 8) using the presented formalisation. Subtyping requires an extension of the presented notion of type conformity.
34. Note that the definition of E′ results in the implicit deletion of dangling edges. Otherwise, the resulting tuple might not represent a graph, as the functions srcE′ and tgtE′ would not necessarily be restricted to N′.
35. In our examples, we typically label variables in patterns with letters (ca, cb,…), objects in configurations with numbers (c22, c23,…).
36. A simple graph pattern is thus a graph pattern with an empty set of NACs.
37. As agents are autonomous and may choose to do nothing, commitments provide the only notion of progress that is useful from an external perspective.
38. http://www.fujaba.de
39. Condition 9 cannot be checked in the general case, as typed graph transformation systems are Turing complete, which rules out the use of automatic verification techniques (cf. Baldan et al., 2005).