Verification of Protocol Conformance and Agent Interoperability

In open multi-agent systems agent interaction is usually ruled by public protocols defining the rules the agents should respect in message exchanging. The respect of such rules guarantees interoperability. Given two agents that agree on using a certain protocol for their interaction, a crucial issue (known as “a priori conformance test”) is verifying if their interaction policies, i.e. the programs that encode their communicative behavior, will actually produce interactions which are conformant to the agreed protocol. An issue that is not always made clear in the existing proposals for conformance tests is whether the test preserves agents' capability of interacting, besides certifying the legality of their possible conversations. This work proposes an approach to the verification of a priori conformance, of an agent's conversation policy to a protocol, which is based on the theory of formal languages. The conformance test is based on the acceptance of both the policy and the protocol by a special finite state automaton and it guarantees the interoperability of agents that are individually proved conformant. Many protocols used in multi-agent systems can be expressed as finite state automata, so this approach can be applied to a wide variety of cases with the proviso that both the protocol specification and the protocol implementation can be translated into finite state automata. In this sense the approach is general. Easy applicability to the case when a logic-based language is used to implement the policies is shown by means of a concrete example, in which the language DyLOG, based on computational logic, is used.

[1]  Jean-Luc Koning,et al.  Interaction Protocol Engineering , 2003, Communication in Multiagent Systems.

[2]  Mario Bravetti,et al.  Formal Techniques for Computer Systems and Business Processes, European Performance Engineering Workshop, EPEW 2005 and International Workshop on Web Services and Formal Methods, WS-FM 2005, Versailles, France, September 1-3, 2005, Proceedings , 2005, EPEW/WS-FM.

[3]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Verifying Protocol Conformance for Logic-Based Communicating Agents , 2004, CLIMA.

[4]  Paola Mello,et al.  Specification and verification of agent interaction protocols in a logic-based system , 2004, SAC '04.

[5]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Reasoning about interaction protocols for customizing web service selection and composition , 2007, J. Log. Algebraic Methods Program..

[6]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Semi-qualitative Reasoning about Distances: A Preliminary Report , 2000, JELIA.

[7]  Francis Guerin,et al.  Specifying agent communication languages , 2002 .

[8]  Rik Eshuis,et al.  Tool support for verifying UML activity diagrams , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[9]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Issues in Agent Communication , 2000, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[10]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Programming Rational Agents in a Modal Action Logic , 2004, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[11]  Nicolas Maudet,et al.  Logic-Based Agent Communication Protocols , 2003, Workshop on Agent Communication Languages.

[12]  Bernhard Bauer,et al.  Extending UML for agents , 2000 .

[13]  Frank Dignum Advances in Agent Communication , 2003, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[14]  Jeffrey D. Ullman,et al.  Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages and Computation , 1979 .

[15]  Andrea Omicini,et al.  Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies III , 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[16]  Jörg P. Müller,et al.  Agent-Oriented Software Engineering V, 5th International Workshop, AOSE 2004, New York, NY, USA, July 19, 2004, Revised Selected Papers , 2004, AOSE.

[17]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Specifying and verifying interaction protocols in a temporal action logic , 2007, J. Appl. Log..

[18]  Mark S. Fox,et al.  COOL: A Language for Describing Coordination in Multi Agent Systems , 1995, ICMAS.

[19]  Frank Guerin,et al.  Verification and Compliance Testing , 2003, Communication in Multiagent Systems.

[20]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Model checking agentspeak , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[21]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Reasoning about Self and Others: Communicating Agents in a Model Action Logic , 2003, ICTCS.

[22]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  Commitment-based and dialogue-game-based protocols: new trends in agent communication languages , 2002, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[23]  守屋 悦朗,et al.  J.E.Hopcroft, J.D. Ullman 著, "Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation", Addison-Wesley, A5変形版, X+418, \6,670, 1979 , 1980 .

[24]  Nicolas Maudet,et al.  Protocol Conformance for Logic-based Agents , 2003, IJCAI.

[25]  Alberto Martelli,et al.  Verifying the Conformance of Web Services to Global Interaction Protocols: A First Step , 2005, EPEW/WS-FM.

[26]  Daniel Moldt,et al.  Formal Semantics for AUML Agent Interaction Protocol Diagrams , 2004, AOSE.

[27]  Laura Giordano,et al.  Verifying Communicating Agents by Model Checking in a Temporal Action Logic , 2004, JELIA.

[28]  Frank Guerin,et al.  Protocols and intentional specifications of multi-party agent conversions for brokerage and auctions , 2000, AGENTS '00.

[29]  Marc-Philippe Huget,et al.  Communication in Multiagent Systems , 2003 .

[30]  Christopher D. Walton,et al.  Model Checking Agent Dialogues , 2004, DALT.

[31]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  A Computational Model for Conversation Policies for Agent Communication , 2004, CLIMA.

[32]  Jeremy V. Pitt,et al.  Communication Protocols in Multi-agent Systems: A Development Method and Reference Architecture , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[33]  Munindar P. Singh A Social Semantics for Agent Communication Languages , 2000, Issues in Agent Communication.

[34]  Roberto Gorrieri,et al.  Choreography and Orchestration: A Synergic Approach for System Design , 2005, ICSOC.