Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process

[EN] Due to the increase in collaborative work and the decentralization of processes in many domains, there is an expanding demand for large-scale, flexible and adaptive software systems to support the interactions of people and institutions distributed in heterogeneous environments. Commonly, these software applications should follow specific regulations meaning the actors using them are bound by rights, duties and restrictions. Since this normative environment determines the final design of the software system, it should be considered as an important issue during the design of the system. Some agent-oriented software engineering methodologies deal with the development of normative systems (systems that have a normative environment) by integrating the analysis of the normative environment of a system in the development process. This paper analyses to what extent these methodologies support the analysis and formalisation of the normative environment and highlights some open issues of the topic.This work is partially supported by the PROMETEOII/2013/019, TIN2012-36586-C03-01, FP7-29493, TIN2011-27652-C03-00, CSD2007-00022 projects, and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Program under the grant agreement No 294931.Garcia Marques, ME.; Miles, S.; Luck, M.; Giret Boggino, AS. (2014). Evaluating how agent methodologies support the specification of the normative environment through the development process. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-014-9275-zS120Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Molesini, A., & Seidita, V. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook on agent-oriented design processes (Vol. VIII, 569 p. 508 illus.). Berlin: Springer.Akbari, O. (2010). A survey of agent-oriented software engineering paradigm: Towards its industrial acceptance. Journal of Computer Engineering Research, 1, 14–28.Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., Giret, A., Julian, V., & Rebollo, M. (2011). An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: The THOMAS approach. Knowledge and Information Systems, 29(2), 379–403.Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). GORMAS: An organizational-oriented methodological guideline for open MAS. In Proceedings of AOSE’09 (pp. 440–449).Argente, E., Botti, V., & Julian, V. (2009). Organizational-oriented methodological guidelines for designing virtual organizations. In Distributed computing, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, soft computing, and ambient assisted living. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 5518, pp. 154–162).Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). Normative systems in computer science—Ten guidelines for normative multiagent systems. In G. Boella, P. Noriega, G. Pigozzi, & H. Verhagen (Eds.), Normative multi-agent systems, number 09121 in Dagstuhl seminar proceedings.Boella, G., Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79.Bogdanovych, A., Esteva, M., Simoff, S., Sierra, C., & Berger, H. (2008). A methodology for developing multiagent systems as 3d electronic institutions. In M. Luck & L. Padgham (Eds.), Agent-Oriented Software Engineering VIII (Vol. 4951, pp. 103–117). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J., & Vazquez-Salceda, J. (2006). Coordination, organizations, institutions and norms in multi-agent systems. LNCS (LNAI) (Vol. 3913).Bordini, R. H., Fisher, M., Visser, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2006). Verifying multi-agent programs by model checking. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (Vol. 12, pp. 239–256). Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Botti, V., Garrido, A., Giret, A., & Noriega, P. (2011). The role of MAS as a decision support tool in a water-rights market. In Post-proceedings workshops AAMAS2011 (Vol. 7068, pp. 35–49). Berlin: Springer.Breaux, T. (2009). Exercising due diligence in legal requirements acquisition: A tool-supported, frame-based approach. In Proceedings of the IEEE international requirements engineering conference (pp. 225–230).Breaux, T. D., & Baumer, D. L. (2011). Legally reasonable security requirements: A 10-year ftc retrospective. Computers and Security, 30(4), 178–193.Breaux, T. D., Vail, M. W., & Anton, A. I. (2006). Towards regulatory compliance: Extracting rights and obligations to align requirements with regulations. In Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international requirements engineering conference, RE ’06 (pp. 46–55). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 203–236.Cardoso, H. L., & Oliveira, E. (2008). A contract model for electronic institutions. In COIN’07: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems III (pp. 27–40).Castor, A., Pinto, R. C., Silva, C. T. L. L., & Castro, J. (2004). Towards requirement traceability in tropos. In WER (pp. 189–200).Chopra, A., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2009). Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. ICST conference on digital business.Cliffe, O., Vos, M., & Padget, J. (2006). Specifying and analysing agent-based social institutions using answer set programming. In O. Boissier, J. Padget, V. Dignum, G. Lindemann, E. Matson, S. Ossowski, J. Sichman, & J. Vázquez-Salceda (Eds.), Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3913, pp. 99–113). Springer. Berlin.Criado, N., Argente, E., Garrido, A., Gimeno, J. A., Igual, F., Botti, V., Noriega, P., & Giret, A. (2011). Norm enforceability in Electronic Institutions? In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VI (Vol. 6541, pp. 250–267). Springer.Dellarocas, C., & Klein, M. (2001). Contractual agent societies. In R. Conte & C. Dellarocas (Eds.), Social order in multiagent systems (Vol. 2, pp. 113–133)., Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations New York: Springer.DeLoach, S. A. (2008). Developing a multiagent conference management system using the o-mase process framework. In Proceedings of the international conference on agent-oriented software engineering VIII (pp. 168–181).DeLoach, S. A., & Garcia-Ojeda, J. C. (2010). O-mase; a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244–280.DeLoach, S. A., Padgham, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., & Thangarajah, J. (2009). Using three aose toolkits to develop a sample design. International Journal Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 3, 416–476.Dignum, F., Dignum, V., Thangarajah, J., Padgham, L., & Winikoff, M. (2007). Open agent systems? Eighth international workshop on agent oriented software engineering (AOSE) in AAMAS07.Dignum, V. (2003). A model for organizational interaction:based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. Formal approaches to agent-based systems (Vol. 2699).Dignum, V., Vazquez-Salceda, J., & Dignum, F. (2005). Omni: Introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In R. Bordini, M. Dastani, J. Dix, & A. Seghrouchni (Eds.)Programming multi-agent systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3346, pp. 181–198). Berlin: Springer.d’Inverno, M., Luck, M., Noriega, P., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., & Sierra, C. (2012). Communicating open systems, 186, 38–94.Elsenbroich, C., & Gilbert, N. (2014). Agent-based modelling. In Modelling norms (pp. 65–84). Dordrecht: Springer.Esteva, M., Rosell, B., Rodriguez, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2004). AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In AAMAS04 (pp. 236–243).Fenech, S., Pace, G. J., & Schneider, G. (2009). Automatic conflict detection on contracts. In Proceedings of the 6th international colloquium on theoretical aspects of computing, ICTAC ’09 (pp. 200–214).Garbay, C., Badeig, F., & Caelen, J. (2012). Normative multi-agent approach to support collaborative work in distributed tangible environments. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion, CSCW ’12 (pp. 83–86). New York, NY: ACM.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated open multi-agent systems based on contracts. In Information Systems Development (pp. 243–255).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., & Delaney, B. (2012). An analysis of agent-oriented engineering of e-health systems. In 13th international eorkshop on sgent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-AAMAS).Garcia, E., Tyson, G., Miles, S., Luck, M., Taweel, A., Staa, T. V., and Delaney, B. (2013). Analysing the Suitability of Multiagent Methodologies for e-Health Systems. In Agent-Oriented Software Engineering XIII, volume 7852, pages 134–150. Springer-Verlag.Garrido, A., Giret, A., Botti, V., & Noriega, P. (2013). mWater, a case study for modeling virtual markets. In New perspectives on agreement technologies (Vol. Law, Gover, pp. 563–579). Springer.Gteau, B., Boissier, O., & Khadraoui, D. (2006). Multi-agent-based support for electronic contracting in virtual enterprises. IFAC Symposium on Information Control Problems in Manufacturing (INCOM), 150(3), 73–91.Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The current state of normative agent-based systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2), 6.Hsieh, F.-S. (2005). Automated negotiation based on contract net and petri net. In E-commerce and web technologies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3590, pp. 148–157).Kollingbaum, M., Jureta, I. J., Vasconcelos, W., & Sycara, K. (2008). Automated requirements-driven definition of norms for the regulation of behavior in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AISB 2008 workshop on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, Aberdeen, Scotland, U.K., April 2008.Li, T., Balke, T., Vos, M., Satoh, K., & Padget, J. (2013). Detecting conflicts in legal systems. In Y. Motomura, A. Butler, & D. Bekki (Eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 7856, pp. 174–189)., Lecture Notes in Computer Science Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.Lomuscio, A., Qu, H., & Solanki, M. (2010) Towards verifying contract regulated service composition. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp. 1–29).Lopez, F., Luck, M., & d’Inverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 227–250.Lpez, F. y, Luck, M., & dInverno, M. (2006). A normative framework for agent-based systems. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 227–250.Mader, P., & Egyed, A. (2012). Assessing the effect of requirements traceability for software maintenance. In 28th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM) (pp. 171–180), Sept 2012.Mao, X., & Yu, E. (2005). Organizational and social concepts in agent oriented software engineering. In AOSE IV. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 3382, pp. 184–202).Meyer, J.-J. C., & Wieringa, R. J. (Eds.). (1993). Deontic logic in computer science: Normative system specification. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Okouya, D., & Dignum, V. (2008). Operetta: A prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations (demo paper). In AAMAS (pp. 1667–1678).Malone, T. W., Smith J. B., & Olson, G. M. (2001). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Oren, N., Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Modgil, S., Luck, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. COIN (pp. 156–171).Osman, N., Robertson, D., & Walton, C. (2006). Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems. In AAMAS ’06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 238–240). New York, NY: ACM.Pace, G., Prisacariu, C., & Schneider, G. (2007). Model checking contracts a case study. In Automated technology for verification and analysis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4762, pp. 82–97).Rotolo, A., & van der Torre, L. (2011). Rules, agents and norms: Guidelines for rule-based normative multi-agent systems. RuleML Europe, 6826, 52–66.Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the elicitation of requirements compliant with regulations. In CAiSE ’08 (pp. 228–242).Siena, A., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A., & Susi, A. (2009). Designing law-compliant software requirements. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on conceptual modeling, ER ’09 (pp. 472–486).Singh, M. P. Commitments in multiagent systems: Some history, some confusions, some controversies, some prospects.Solaiman, E., Molina-Jimenez, C., & Shrivastav, S. (2003). Model checking correctness properties of electronic contracts. In Service-oriented computing—ICSOC 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2910, pp. 303–318). Berlin: Springer.Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications. Enhancing tropos with commitments (pp. 417–435).Vázquez-Salceda, J., Confalonieri, R., Gomez, I., Storms, P., Nick Kuijpers, S. P., & Alvarez, S. (2009). Modelling contractually-bounded interactions in the car insurance domain. DIGIBIZ 2009.Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Symbolic model checking of institutions. In ICEC (pp. 35–44).Walton, C. D. (2007). Verifiable agent dialogues. Journal of Applied Logic, 5(2):197–213, Logic-Based Agent Verification.Winkler, S., & Pilgrim, J. (2010). A survey of traceability in requirements engineering and model-driven development. Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM), 9(4), 529–565.Wooldridge, M., Fisher, M., Huget, M., & Parsons, S. (2002). Model checking multi-agent systems with mable. In AAMAS02 (pp. 952–959). ACM

Designing normative open virtual enterprises

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis Group in Enterprise Information Systems on 23/03/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/17517575.2015.1036927.[EN] There is an increasing interest on developing virtual enterprises in order to deal with the globalisation of the economy, the rapid growth of information technologies and the increase of competitiveness. In this paper we deal with the development of normative open virtual enterprises (NOVEs). They are systems with a global objective that are composed of a set of heterogeneous entities and enterprises that exchange services following a specific normative context. In order to analyse and design systems of this kind the multi-agent paradigm seems suitable because it offers a specific solution for supporting the social and contractual relationships between enterprises and for formalising their business processes. This paper presents how the Regulated Open Multiagent systems (ROMAS) methodology, an agent-oriented software methodology, can be used to analyse and design NOVEs. ROMAS offers a complete development process that allows identifying and formalising of the structure of NOVEs, their normative context and the interactions among their members. The use of ROMAS is exemplified by means of a case study that represents an automotive supply chain.This work was partially supported by the projects [PROMETEOII/2013/019], [TIN2012-36586-C03-01], [FP7-29493], [TIN2011-27652-C03-00] and [CSD2007-00022], and the CASES project within the 7th European Community Framework Programme [grant agreement number 294931].Garcia Marques, ME.; Giret Boggino, AS.; Botti Navarro, VJ. (2016). Designing normative open virtual enterprises. Enterprise Information Systems. 10(3):303-324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2015.1036927S303324103Cardoso, H. L., Urbano, J., Brandão, P., Rocha, A. P., & Oliveira, E. (2012). ANTE: Agreement Negotiation in Normative and Trust-Enabled Environments. Advances on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 261-264. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28786-2_33Chu, X. N., Tso, S. K., Zhang, W. J., & Li, Q. (2002). Partnership Synthesis for Virtual Enterprises. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 19(5), 384-391. doi:10.1007/s001700200028Davidsson, P., & Jacobsson, A. (s. f.). Towards Norm-Governed Behavior in Virtual Enterprises. Studies in Computational Intelligence, 35-55. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88071-4_3DeLoach, S. A., & Ojeda, J. C. G. (2010). O-MaSE: a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 4(3), 244. doi:10.1504/ijaose.2010.036984DI MARZO SERUGENDO, G., GLEIZES, M.-P., & KARAGEORGOS, A. (2005). Self-organization in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20(2), 165-189. doi:10.1017/s0269888905000494Dignum, V. 2003. “A Model for Organizational Interaction: Based on Agents, Founded in Logic.” PhD diss., Utrecht University.Dignum, V., and F. Dignum. 2006.A Landscape of Agent Systems for the Real World. Technical Report 44-CS-2006-061. Utrecht: Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University.Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J. C., Dignum, F., & Weigand, H. (2003). Formal Specification of Interaction in Agent Societies. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 37-52. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45133-4_4Garcia, E. 2013. “Engineering Regulated Open Multiagent Systems.” PhD diss., Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (s. f.). Software Engineering for Service-Oriented MAS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 86-100. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85834-8_9Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2013). A Model-Driven CASE tool for developing and verifying regulated open MAS. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 695-704. doi:10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.009Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Evaluating software engineering techniques for developing complex systems with multiagent approaches. Information and Software Technology, 53(5), 494-506. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2010.12.012Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2011). Regulated Open Multi-Agent Systems Based on Contracts. Information Systems Development, 243-255. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_20Garcia, E., Giret, A., & Botti, V. (2014). ROMAS Methodology. Handbook on Agent-Oriented Design Processes, 331-369. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39975-6_11Hollander, C. D., & Wu, A. S. (2011). The Current State of Normative Agent-Based Systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(2). doi:10.18564/jasss.1750HORLING, B., & LESSER, V. (2004). A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19(4), 281-316. doi:10.1017/s0269888905000317Julian, V., Rebollo, M., Argente, E., Botti, V., Carrascosa, C., & Giret, A. (2009). Using THOMAS for Service Oriented Open MAS. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 56-70. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10739-9_5Luck, M., Barakat, L., Keppens, J., Mahmoud, S., Miles, S., Oren, N., … Taweel, A. (2011). Flexible Behaviour Regulation in Agent Based Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 99-113. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22427-0_8Meneguzzi, F., Modgil, S., Oren, N., Miles, S., Luck, M., & Faci, N. (2012). Applying electronic contracting to the aerospace aftercare domain. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(7), 1471-1487. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2012.06.004Presley, A., Sarkis, J., Barnett, W., & Liles, D. (2001). International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 13(2), 145-162. doi:10.1023/a:1011131417956Saeki, M., & Kaiya, H. (2008). Supporting the Elicitation of Requirements Compliant with Regulations. Active Flow and Combustion Control 2018, 228-242. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69534-9_18Such, J. M., García-Fornes, A., Espinosa, A., & Bellver, J. (2013). Magentix2: A privacy-enhancing Agent Platform. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 26(1), 96-109. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2012.06.009Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2009). Enhancing Tropos with Commitments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 417-435. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02463-4_22Wooldridgey, M., & Ciancarini, P. (2001). Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: The State of the Art. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1-28. doi:10.1007/3-540-44564-1_

Automatic Transformation-Based Model Checking of Multi-agent Systems

Multi-Agent Systems (MASs) are highly useful constructs in the context of real-world software applications. Built upon communication and interaction between autonomous agents, these systems are suitable to model and implement intelligent applications. Yet these desirable features are precisely what makes these systems very challenging to design, and their compliance with requirements extremely difficult to verify. This explains the need for the development of techniques and tools to model, understand, and implement interacting MASs. Among the different methods developed, the design-time verification techniques for MASs based on model checking offer the advantage of being formal and fully automated. We can distinguish between two different approaches used in model checking MASs, the direct verification approach, and the transformation-based approach. This thesis focuses on the later that relies on formal reduction techniques to transform the problem of model checking a source logic into that of an equivalent problem of model checking a target logic. In this thesis, we propose a new transformation framework leveraging the model checking of the computation tree logic (CTL) and its NuSMV model checker to design and implement the process of transformation-based model checking for CTL-extension logics to MASs. The approach provides an integrated system with a rich set of features, designed to support the transformation process while simplifying the most challenging and error-prone tasks. The thesis presents and describes the tool built upon this framework and its different applications. A performance comparison with MCMAS, the model checker of MASs, is also discussed

Model Checking Trust-based Multi-Agent Systems

Trust has been the focus of many research projects, both theoretical and practical, in the recent years, particularly in domains where open multi-agent technologies are applied (e.g., Internet-based markets, Information retrieval, etc.). The importance of trust in such domains arises mainly because it provides a social control that regulates the relationships and interactions among agents. Despite the growing number of various multi-agent applications, they still encounter many challenges in their formal modeling and the verification of agents’ behaviors. Many formalisms and approaches that facilitate the specifications of trust in Multi-Agent Systems (MASs) can be found in the literature. However, most of these approaches focus on the cognitive side of trust where the trusting entity is normally capable of exhibiting properties about beliefs, desires, and intentions. Hence, the trust is considered as a belief of an agent (the truster) involving ability and willingness of the trustee to perform some actions for the truster. Nevertheless, in open MASs, entities can join and leave the interactions at any time. This means MASs will actually provide no guarantee about the behavior of their agents, which makes the capability of reasoning about trust and checking the existence of untrusted computations highly desired. This thesis aims to address the problem of modeling and verifying at design time trust in MASs by (1) considering a cognitive-independent view of trust where trust ingredients are seen from a non-epistemic angle, (2) introducing a logical language named Trust Computation Tree Logic (TCTL), which extends CTL with preconditional, conditional, and graded trust operators along with a set of reasoning postulates in order to explore its capabilities, (3) proposing a new accessibility relation which is needed to define the semantics of the trust modal operators. This accessibility relation is defined so that it captures the intuition of trust while being easily computable, (4) investigating the most intuitive and efficient algorithm for computing the trust set by developing, implementing, and experimenting different model checking techniques in order to compare between them in terms of memory consumption, efficiency, and scalability with regard to the number of considered agents, (5) evaluating the performance of the model checking techniques by analyzing the time and space complexity. The approach has been applied to different application domains to evaluate its computational performance and scalability. The obtained results reveal the effectiveness of the proposed approach, making it a promising methodology in practice

Reducing model checking commitments for agent communication to model checking ARCTL and GCTL*

Social commitments have been extensively and effectively used to represent and model business contracts among autonomous agents having competing objectives in a variety of areas (e.g., modeling business processes and commitment-based protocols). However, the formal verification of social commitments and their fulfillment is still an active research topic. This paper presents CTLC+ that modifies CTLC, a temporal logic of commitments for agent communication that extends computation tree logic (CTL) logic to allow reasoning about communicating commitments and their fulfillment. The verification technique is based on reducing the problem of model checking CTLC+ into the problem of model checking ARCTL (the combination of CTL with action formulae) and the problem of model checking GCTL* (a generalized version of CTL* with action formulae) in order to respectively use the extended NuSMV symbolic model checker and the CWB-NC automata-based model checker as a benchmark. We also prove that the reduction techniques are sound and the complexity of model checking CTLC+ for concurrent programs with respect to the size of the components of these programs and the length of the formula is PSPACE-complete. This matches the complexity of model checking CTL for concurrent programs as shown by Kupferman et al. We finally provide two case studies taken from business domain along with their respective implementations and experimental results to illustrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed technique. The first one is about the NetBill protocol and the second one considers the Contract Net protocol

Requirements-Driven Adaptation of Choreographed Interactions

Electronic services are emerging as the de-facto enabler of interaction interoperability across organization boundaries. Cross-organizational interactions are often “choreographed”, i.e. specified by a messaging protocol from a global point of view independent of the local view of each interacting organization. Local requirements motivating an interaction as well as the global contextual requirements governing the interaction inevitably evolve over time, requiring adaptation of the corresponding interaction protocol. Adaptation of an interaction protocol must ensure the satisfaction of both sets of interaction requirements while maintaining consistency between the global view and the local views of an interaction specification. Such adaptation is not possible with the current state-of-the-art representations of choreographed interactions, as they capture only operational messaging specifications detached from both local organizational requirements as well as global contextual requirements. This thesis presents three novel contributions that tackle adaptation of choreographed interaction protocols: an automated technique for deriving an interaction protocol from requirements, a formalization of consistency between local and global views, and a framework for guiding the adaptation of a choreographed interaction. A choreographed interaction is specified using models of organizational requirements motivating the interaction. We employ the formal semantics embedded in requirements models to automatically derive an interaction protocol. We propose a framework for relating the global and local views of interaction specification and maintaining consistency between them. We develop a metamodel for interaction specification, from which we enumerate adaptation operations. We build a catalogue that provides guidance on performing each operation and propagating changes between the global and local views. These contributions are evaluated using examples from the literature as well as a real-world case study

Model Checking Logics of Social Commitments for Agent Communication

This thesis is about specifying and verifying communications among autonomous and possibly heterogeneous agents, which are the key principle for constructing effective open multi-agent systems (MASs). Effective systems are those that successfully achieve applicability, feasibility, error-freeness and balance between expressiveness and verification efficiency aspects. Over the last two decades, the MAS community has advocated social commitments, which successfully provide a powerful representation for modeling communications in the figure of business contracts from one agent to another. While modeling communications using commitments provides a fundamental basis for capturing flexible communications and helps address the challenge of ensuring compliance with specifications, the designers and business process modelers of the system as a whole cannot guarantee that an agent complies with its commitments as supposed to or at least not wantonly violate or cancel them. They may still wish to first formulate the notion of commitment-based protocols that regulate communications among agents and then establish formal verification (e.g., model checking) by which compliance verification in those protocols is possible. In this thesis, we address the aforementioned challenges by firstly developing a new branching-time temporal logic---called ACTL*c---that extends CTL* with modal operators for representing and reasoning about commitments and all associated actions. The proposed semantics for ACL (agent communication language) messages in terms of commitments and their actions is formal, declarative, meaningful, verifiable and semi-computationally grounded. We use ACTL*c to derive a new specification language of commitment-based protocols, which is expressive and suitable for model checking. We introduce a reduction method to formally transform the problem of model checking ACTL*c to the problem of model checking GCTL* so that the use of the CWB-NC model checker is possible. We prove the soundness of our reduction method and implement it on top of CWB-NC. To check the effectiveness of our reduction method, we report the verification results of the NetBill protocol and Contract Net protocol against some properties. In addition to the reduction method, we develop a new symbolic algorithm to perform model checking ACTL*c. To balance between expressiveness and verification efficiency, we secondly adopt a refined fragment of ACTL*c, called CTLC, an extension of CTL with modalities for commitments and their fulfillment. We extend the formalism of interpreted systems introduced to develop MASs with shared and unshared variables and considered agents' local states in the definition of a full-computationally grounded semantics for ACL messages using commitments. We present reasonable axioms of commitment and fulfillment modalities. In our verification technique, the problem of model checking CTLC is reduced into the problems of model checking ARCTL and GCTL* so that respectively extended NuSMV and CWB-NC (as a benchmark) are usable. We prove the soundness of our reduction methods and then implement them on top of the extended NuSMV and CWB-NC model checkers. To evaluate the effectiveness of our reduction methods, we verified the correctness of two business case studies. We finally proceed to develop a new symbolic model checking algorithm to directly verify commitments and their fulfillment and commitment-based protocols. We analyze the time complexity of CTLC model checking for explicit models and its space complexity for concurrent programs that provide compact representations. We prove that although CTLC extends CTL, their model checking algorithms still have the same time complexity for explicit models, and the same space complexity for concurrent programs. We fully implement the proposed algorithm on top of MCMAS, a model checker for the verification of MASs, and then check its efficiency and scalability using an industrial case study