Panel Discussion: Empirical versus Formal Methods

The panel on Empirical versus Formal Methods was highly thought-provoking. The panel began with 10-minute presentations by the panel members. The first speaker was Doug Smith from Kestrel Institute. The main thrust of Smith’s presentation was that formal methods enable run-time matching of agent services and requirements. In particular, if agent services and requirements are formally specified, then it is possible to automate the matchmaking process. Smith’s presentation was followed by Henry Hexmoor, from the University of North Dakota. Hexmoor emphasized the need for a synergistic relationship between empirical and formal approaches. By using the concept of agent autonomy as a common theme, Hexmoor gave examples of how the two approaches can complement each other in the context of various autonomy schemes. John Rushby, from Stanford Research Institute, was the next speaker. Rushby began by stressing the importance of formal methods as a means of system engineering. A mathematical model enables people to provide behavioral assurances about their system; such assurances are essential for many applications. Rushby then stated that if we design an agent as a formal method (i.e., deduction on a model) then the agent may not require external verification. Rob Axtell, from Brookings Institute, presented his view next. Axtell cautioned us to be careful in our use of formal approaches. He cited examples of potential pitfalls. The last panel member was Nenad Ivezic, from the National Institute for Standards and Technology.