Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Coping with Bad Agent Interaction Protocols When Monitoring Partially Observable Multiagent Systems

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Complexity: The PAAMS Collection (PAAMS 2018)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 10978))

Abstract

Interaction Protocols are fundamental elements to provide the entities in a system, be them actors, agents, services, or other communicating pieces of software, a means to agree on a global interaction pattern and to be sure that all the other entities in the system adhere to it as well. These “global interaction patterns” may serve different purposes: if the system does not yet exist, they may specify the allowed interactions in order to drive the system’s implementation and execution. If the system exists before and independently from the protocol, the protocol may still specify the allowed interactions, but it cannot be used to implement them. Its purpose in this case is to monitor that the actual system does respect the rules (runtime verification). Tagging some protocols as good ones and others as bad is common to all the research communities where interaction is crucial, and it is not surprising that some protocol features are recognized as bad ones everywhere. In this paper we analyze the notion of good, bad and ugly protocols in the MAS community and outside, and we discuss the role that bad protocols, despite being bad, may play in a runtime verification scenario where not all the events and interaction channels can be observed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Web Services Choreography Description Language Version 1.0 W3C Candidate Recommendation 9 November 2005, https://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/.

  2. 2.

    BPEL4Chor Choreography Extension for BPEL, http://www.bpel4chor.org/.

  3. 3.

    Web Services Business Process Execution Language Version 2.0, OASIS Standard, 11 April 2007, http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/OS/wsbpel-v2.0-OS.html.

References

  1. Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: The SCIFF abductive proof-procedure. In: Bandini, S., Manzoni, S. (eds.) AI*IA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3673, pp. 135–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11558590_14

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Alechina, N., Dastani, M., Logan, B.: Norm approximation for imperfect monitors. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2014, pp. 117–124. IFAAMAS/ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ancona, D., Bono, V., Bravetti, M., Campos, J., Castagna, G., et al.: Behavioral types in programming languages. Found. Trends Program. Lang. 3(2–3), 95–230 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ancona, D., Briola, D., Ferrando, A., Mascardi, V.: Global protocols as first class entities for self-adaptive agents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 1019–1029. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ancona, D., Drossopoulou, S., Mascardi, V.: Automatic generation of self-monitoring MASs from multiparty global session types in Jason. In: Baldoni, M., Dennis, L., Mascardi, V., Vasconcelos, W. (eds.) DALT 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7784, pp. 76–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37890-4_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Ancona, D., Ferrando, A., Franceschini, L., Mascardi, V.: Managing bad AIPs with RIVERtools. In: Demazeau, Y., et al. (eds.) PAAMS 2018, LNAI, vol. 10978, pp. 296–300. Springer, Cham (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ancona, D., Ferrando, A., Mascardi, V.: Comparing trace expressions and linear temporal logic for runtime verification. In: Ábrahám, E., Bonsangue, M., Johnsen, E.B. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Formal Methods. LNCS, vol. 9660, pp. 47–64. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30734-3_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ancona, D., Ferrando, A., Mascardi, V.: Parametric runtime verification of multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2017, pp. 1457–1459. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ancona, D., Ferrando, A., Mascardi, V.: Improving flexibility and dependability of remote patient monitoring with agent-oriented approaches. In: IJAOSE. (2018, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Martelli, A., Patti, V.: Verification of protocol conformance and agent interoperability. In: Toni, F., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3900, pp. 265–283. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11750734_15

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F.: A commitment-based infrastructure for programming socio-technical systems. ACM Trans. Internet Techn. 14(4), 1–23 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., Micalizio, R.: Exploiting social commitments in programming agent interaction. In: Chen, Q., Torroni, P., Villata, S., Hsu, J., Omicini, A. (eds.) PRIMA 2015. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9387, pp. 566–574. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25524-8_39

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Basin, D., Klaedtke, F., Marinovic, S., Zălinescu, E.: Monitoring compliance policies over incomplete and disagreeing logs. In: Qadeer, S., Tasiran, S. (eds.) RV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7687, pp. 151–167. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35632-2_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Bellifemine, F.L., Caire, G., Greenwood, D.: Developing Multi-Agent Systems with JADE. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Bettini, L., Coppo, M., D’Antoni, L., De Luca, M., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Yoshida, N.: Global progress in dynamically interleaved multiparty sessions. In: van Breugel, F., Chechik, M. (eds.) CONCUR 2008. LNCS, vol. 5201, pp. 418–433. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85361-9_33

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Wooldridge, M.: Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley, Hoboken (2007)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Briola, D., Mascardi, V., Ancona, D.: Distributed runtime verification of JADE multiagent systems. In: Camacho, D., Braubach, L., Venticinque, S., Badica, C. (eds.) Intelligent Distributed Computing VIII. SCI, vol. 570, pp. 81–91. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10422-5_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Bulling, N., Dastani, M., Knobbout, M.: Monitoring norm violations in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2013, pp. 491–498. IFAAMAS (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Casella, G., Mascardi, V.: West2East: exploiting web service technologies to engineer agent-based software. IJAOSE 1(3/4), 396–434 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Castagna, G., Dezani-Ciancaglini, M., Padovani, L.: On global types and multi-party session. Log. Methods Comput. Sci. 8(1) (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chopra, A.K., Christie, S., Singh, M.P.: Splee: a declarative information-based language for multiagent interaction protocols. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2017, pp. 1054–1063. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Cupid: commitments in relational algebra. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2015, pp. 2052–2059. AAAI Press (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cossentino, M.: From requirements to code with the PASSI methodology. Agent-Orient. Methodol. 3690, 79–106 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Criado, N., Such, J.M.: Norm monitoring under partial action observability. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 47(2), 270–282 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Deniélou, P.-M., Yoshida, N.: Multiparty session types meet communicating automata. In: Seidl, H. (ed.) ESOP 2012. LNCS, vol. 7211, pp. 194–213. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28869-2_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Desai, N., Mallya, A.U., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 31(12), 1015–1027 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferrando, A.: RIVERtools: an IDE for runtIme VERification of MASs, and beyond. CEUR Workshop Proc. 2056, 13–26 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ferrando, A., Ancona, D., Mascardi, V.: Decentralizing MAS monitoring with DecAMon. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2017, pp. 239–248. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Francalanza, A., Pérez, J.A., Sánchez, C.: Runtime verification for decentralised and distributed systems. In: Bartocci, E., Falcone, Y. (eds.) Lectures on Runtime Verification. LNCS, vol. 10457, pp. 176–210. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75632-5_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. García-Ojeda, J.C., DeLoach, S.A., Robby: AgentTool III: from process definition to code generation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, pp. 1393–1394. IFAAMAS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Honda, K., Yoshida, N., Carbone, M.: Multiparty asynchronous session types. In: Proceedings of POPL 2008, pp. 273–284. ACM (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Huget, M., Odell, J.: Representing agent interaction protocols with agent UML. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2004, pp. 1244–1245. IEEE Computer Society (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Joshi, Y., Tchamgoue, G.M., Fischmeister, S.: Runtime verification of LTL on lossy traces. In: Proceedings of SAC 2017, pp. 1379–1386. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ladkin, P.B., Leue, S.: Interpreting message flow graphs. Formal Aspects Comput. 7(5), 473–509 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lanese, I., Guidi, C., Montesi, F., Zavattaro, G.: Bridging the gap between interaction-and process-oriented choreographies. In: Proceedings of ICSEFM 2008, pp. 323–332. IEEE (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Papazoglou, M.P.: Service -oriented computing: concepts, characteristics and directions. In: Proceedings of WISE 2003, p. 3. IEEE Computer Society (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Singh, M.P.: Information-driven interaction-oriented programming: BSPL, the blindingly simple protocol language. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2011, pp. 491–498. IFAAMAS (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stoller, S.D., Bartocci, E., Seyster, J., Grosu, R., Havelund, K., Smolka, S.A., Zadok, E.: Runtime verification with state estimation. In: Khurshid, S., Sen, K. (eds.) RV 2011. LNCS, vol. 7186, pp. 193–207. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29860-8_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Tinnemeier, N.A.M., Dastani, M., Meyer, J.C., van der Torre, L.W.N.: Programming normative artifacts with declarative obligations and prohibitions. In: Proceedings of IAT 2009, pp. 145–152. IEEE Computer Society (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Winikoff, M., Liu, W., Harland, J.: Enhancing commitment machines. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, I. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 198–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/11493402_12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Winikoff, M., Yadav, N., Padgham, L.: A new hierarchical agent protocol notation. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 32(1), 59–133 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Commitment machines. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 235–247. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45448-9_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Yukish, M., Peluso, E., Phoha, S., Sircar, S., Licari, J., Ray, A., Mayk, I.: Limits of control in designing distributed \({C}^2\) experiments under imperfect communications. In: Military Communications Conference MILCOM 1994. IEEE (1994)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Università degli Studi di Genova, Genoa, Italy

    Davide Ancona, Angelo Ferrando, Luca Franceschini & Viviana Mascardi

Authors
  1. Davide Ancona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelo Ferrando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luca Franceschini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Viviana Mascardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viviana Mascardi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Grenoble, France

    Yves Demazeau

  2. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Bo An

  3. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Javier Bajo

  4. Universidad de Castilla La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

    Antonio Fernández-Caballero

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Ancona, D., Ferrando, A., Franceschini, L., Mascardi, V. (2018). Coping with Bad Agent Interaction Protocols When Monitoring Partially Observable Multiagent Systems. In: Demazeau, Y., An, B., Bajo, J., Fernández-Caballero, A. (eds) Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Complexity: The PAAMS Collection. PAAMS 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10978. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94580-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94580-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94579-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94580-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation