Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.5555/2615731.2617395acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaamasConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Checking consistency of agent designs against interaction protocols for early-phase defect location

Published: 05 May 2014 Publication History

Abstract

Multi-agent systems are increasingly being used in complex applications due to features such as autonomy, proactivity, flexibility, robustness and social ability. However, these very features also make verifying multi-agent systems a challenging task. In this paper, we propose a mechanism, including automated tool support, for early phase defect detection by comparing agent interaction specifications with the detailed design of the agents participating in the interactions. The basic intuition of our approach is to extract sets of possible traces from the agent design and to verify whether these traces conform to the protocol specifications. Our approach is based on the Prometheus agent design methodology but is applicable to other similar methodologies. Our initial evaluation shows that even simple protocols developed by relatively experienced developers are prone to defects, and our approach is successful in uncovering some of these defects.

References

[1]
J. Botía, J. Gómez-Sanz, and J. Pavón Intelligent data analysis for the verification of multi-agent systems interactions. IDEAL, pages 1207--1214, 2006.
[2]
P. Bresciani, A. Perini, P. Giorgini, F. Giunchiglia, and J. Mylopoulos. Tropos: An agent oriented software development methodology. AAMAS, 8(3):203--236, 2004.
[3]
L. Cernuzzi and F. Zambonelli. GAIA4E: A tool supporting the design of MAS using Gaia. In ICEIS, pages 82--88, 2009.
[4]
B. Cox, J. Tygar, and M. Sirbu. NetBill security and transaction protocol. In First USENIX Workshop on e-Commerce, pages 77--88, 1995.
[5]
M. Dastani, J. Brandsema, A. Dubel, and J.-J. Meyer. Debugging bdi-based multi-agent programs. Programming Multi-Agent Systems, pages 151--169, 2010.
[6]
S. A. DeLoach and J. C. Garcia-Ojeda. O-mase: a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. IJAOSE, 4(3):244--280, 2010.
[7]
L. Dennis, M. Fisher, M. Webster, and R. Bordini. Model checking agent programming languages. Automated Software Engineering, 19(1):5--63, 2012.
[8]
A. Fuxman, M. Pistore, J. Mylopoulos, and P. Traverso. Model checking early requirements specifications in tropos. In Proceedings of 5th IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pages 174--181. IEEE, 2001.
[9]
P. Giorgini, J. Mylopoulos, and R. Sebastiani. Goal-oriented requirements analysis and reasoning in the tropos methodology. Eng. App. of AI, 18(2):159--171, 2005.
[10]
J. J. Gomez-Sanz, R. Fuentes, J. Pavón, and I. García-Magari no. INGENIAS development kit: a visual multi-agent system development environment. In AAMAS pages 1675--1676. IFAAMAS, 2008.
[11]
T. Miller, L. Padgham, and J. Thangarajah. Test coverage criteria for agent interaction testing. AOSE XI, pages 91--105, 2011.
[12]
S. Munroe, T. Miller, R. Belecheanu, M. Pechoucek, P. McBurney, and M. Luck. Crossing the agent technology chasm: Lessons, experiences and challenges in commercial applications of agents. KER, 21(4):345, 2006.
[13]
T. Murata. Petri Nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(4):541--580, 1989.
[14]
C. Nguyen, S. Miles, A. Perini, P. Tonella, M. Harman, and M. Luck. Evolutionary testing of autonomous software agents. AAMAS, 25(2):260--283, 2012.
[15]
J. Odell, H. Van Dyke Parunak, and B. Bauer. Representing agent interaction protocols in UML. In AOSE, pages 201--218. Springer, 2001.
[16]
L. Padgham, J. Thangarajah, Z. Zhang, and T. Miller. Model-based test oracle generation for automated unit testing of agent systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(9):1230--1244, 2013.
[17]
L. Padgham and M. Winikoff. Developing intelligent agent systems: a practical guide, volume 1. Wiley, 2004.
[18]
D. Poutakidis, L. Padgham, and M. Winikoff. Debugging mass using design artifacts: The case of interaction protocols. In AAMAS, pages 960--967. ACM, 2002.
[19]
R. Pressman. Software engineering: a practitioner's approach, volume 7. McGraw-Kill New York, 2009.
[20]
A. Rao and M. Georgeff. BDI agents: From theory to practice. In AAMAS, pages 312--319, 1995.
[21]
L. Sterling and K. Taveter. The Art of Agent-Oriented Modeling. MIT Press, 2009.
[22]
M. Winikoff. Towards making agent UML practical: A textual notation and a tool. In Quality Software, 2005.(QSIC'5), pages 401{406. IEEE, 2005.
[23]
M. Wooldridge, N. Jennings, and D. Kinny. The Gaia methodology for agent oriented analysis and design. AAMAS, 3(3):285--312, 2000.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Making Sense of Actor BehaviourProceedings of the 12th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference (formerly known as India Software Engineering Conference)10.1145/3299771.3299783(1-10)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2019
  • (2018)Agent systems verificationApplied Intelligence10.1007/s10489-017-1112-z48:5(1251-1274)Online publication date: 1-May-2018
  • (2017)Agent design consistency checking via planningProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171642.3171708(458-464)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Checking consistency of agent designs against interaction protocols for early-phase defect location

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    AAMAS '14: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems
    May 2014
    1774 pages
    ISBN:9781450327381

    Sponsors

    • IFAAMAS

    In-Cooperation

    Publisher

    International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

    Richland, SC

    Publication History

    Published: 05 May 2014

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. aose
    2. multi-agent systems
    3. verification

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    AAMAS '14
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    AAMAS '14 Paper Acceptance Rate 169 of 709 submissions, 24%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2019)Making Sense of Actor BehaviourProceedings of the 12th Innovations in Software Engineering Conference (formerly known as India Software Engineering Conference)10.1145/3299771.3299783(1-10)Online publication date: 14-Feb-2019
    • (2018)Agent systems verificationApplied Intelligence10.1007/s10489-017-1112-z48:5(1251-1274)Online publication date: 1-May-2018
    • (2017)Agent design consistency checking via planningProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.5555/3171642.3171708(458-464)Online publication date: 19-Aug-2017
    • (2017)SpleeProceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems10.5555/3091125.3091274(1054-1063)Online publication date: 8-May-2017
    • (2017)A framework for automatically ensuring the conformance of agent designsJournal of Systems and Software10.1016/j.jss.2017.05.098131:C(266-310)Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017
    • (2016)Checking the conformance of requirements in agent designs using ATLProceedings of the Twenty-second European Conference on Artificial Intelligence10.3233/978-1-61499-672-9-243(243-251)Online publication date: 29-Aug-2016
    • (2015)Early Detection of Design Faults Relative to Requirement Specifications in Agent-Based ModelsProceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/2772879.2773287(1071-1079)Online publication date: 4-May-2015

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media