How to Do Things With Words

The study of multi-agent systems (MAS) focuses on systems in which many intelligent agents interact with each other. These agents are considered to be autonomous entities such as software programs or robots. Their interactions can either be cooperative (for example as in an ant colony) or selfish (as in a free market economy). This book assumes only basic knowledge of algorithms and discrete maths, both of which are taught as standard in the first or second year of computer science degree programmes. A basic knowledge of artificial intelligence would useful to help understand some of the issues, but is not essential. The books main aims are: To introduce the student to the concept of agents and multi-agent systems, and the main applications for which they are appropriate To introduce the main issues surrounding the design of intelligent agents To introduce the main issues surrounding the design of a multi-agent society To introduce a number of typical applications for agent technology

An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems.

What is modal logic

Service composition approaches in IoT: A systematic review

Formal verification approaches and standards in the cloud computing

Model checking temporal knowledge and commitments in multi-agent systems using reduction

Both knowledge and social commitments have received considerable attention in Multi-Agent Systems (MASs), specially for multi-agent communication. Plenty of work has been carried out to define their semantics. However, the relationship between social commitments and knowledge has not been investigated yet. In this paper, we aim to explore such a relationship from the semantics and model checking perspectives with respect to CTLK logic (an extension of CTL logic with modality for reasoning about knowledge) and CTLC logic (an extension of CTL with modalities for reasoning about commitments and their fulfillments). To analyze this logical relationship, we simply combine the two logics in one new logic named CTLKC. The purpose of such a combination is not to advocate a new logic, but only to express and figure out some reasoning postulates merging both knowledge and commitments as they are currently defined in the literature. By so doing, we identify some paradoxes in the new logic showing that simply combining current versions of commitment and knowledge logics results in a logical language that violates some fundamental intuitions. Consequently, we propose CTLKC+, a new logic that fixes the identified paradoxes and allows us to reason about social commitments and knowledge simultaneously in a consistent manner. Furthermore, we address the problem of model checking CTLKC+ by reducing it to the problem of model checking GCTL?, a generalized version of CTL? with action formulae. By doing so, we directly benefit from CWB-NC, the model checker of GCTL?. Using this reduction, we also prove that the computational complexity of model checking CTLKC+ is still PSPACE-complete for concurrent programs as the complexity of model checking CTLK and CTLC separately.

On the interaction between knowledge and social commitments in multi-agent systems

In this paper, we present a new set of metrics for building secure software systems. The proposed metrics aim to address security risks throughout the entire software development life cycle (SDLC). The importance of this work comes from the fact that assessing security risks at early stages of the development life cycle can help implement efficient solutions before the software is delivered to the customer. The proposed metrics are defined using the goal/question/metric method. It is anticipated that software engineers will use these metrics in combination with other techniques to detect security risks and prevent these risks from becoming reality. This work is part of a larger research project that aims at examining the concept of "Design for Security". The objective is to investigate software engineering techniques to support security requirements from the very beginning of the development process.

Catalog of Metrics for Assessing Security Risks of Software throughout the Software Development Life Cycle

In order to increase the chance of successfully achieving an agreement in negotiation dialogues, agents should be certain about their moves selection. Negotiation in ambiguous conditions such as incomplete information settings, leads to uncertainty about the played moves and makes the task of making decisions more complex. In this paper, we study and analyze agents’ uncertainty in argumentation-based agent negotiation (ABAN). We present two methods: Method I, and Method II. Method I extends a previously defined approach for measuring agents’ uncertainty based on Shannon entropy. Method II introduces a new technique to assess agents’ uncertainty using hypothesis testing. The objective is to build a comprehensive framework for tackling agents’ uncertainty in ABAN. Furthermore, we propose a Markov decision process-based framework to incorporate the different situations of agents’ uncertainty based on the available arguments or offers. Besides, we discuss the uncertainty issues in two special cases based on the different classes that arguments can belong to. In addition to the theoretical analysis of arguments uncertainty, we discuss the implementation of the proposed approach by applying it to a concrete case study (Buyer/Seller) scenario. The obtained empirical results confirm the effectiveness of using our uncertainty-aware techniques and show that our negotiating agents outperform others that use pure argumentation with no uncertainty consideration
.

Decision making under subjective uncertainty in argumentation-based agent negotiation

We developed a set of valid reasoning postulates in CTLKC+.We proved soundness and completeness of CTLKC+ using the correspondence theory.We used NetBill as a concrete application example to illustrate the postulates. Benthem's correspondence theory is one of the most important tools of the theory of modal logics developed in the last three decades. Correspondence theory, a subfield of the model theory, reflects a systematic study of relations between classes of frames and modal language. In this paper, we use correspondence theory for modal logics to solve a problem not addressed yet in the literature, namely the soundness and completeness of a logic combining two different, yet related modalities: agents' knowledge and commitments. The paper proves the soundness and completeness of this logic called CTLKC+. This work is highly significant as it proves that combining the two agents' modalities resulted in a consistent logic that can be used to design reliable systems. The methodology is as follows: we develop a set of reasoning postulates (axioms) that reflect the interaction between agents' knowledge and social commitments in multi-agent system (MAS) using the CTLKC+ logic and correspond them to certain classes of frames. In particular, we first give a name, formalization and meaning for each postulate. Then, we correspond the postulates to certain classes of frames and provide the required proofs. Thereafter, we present a discussion that illustrates the importance of the proposed postulates in MASs using a concrete application example called the NetBill protocol taken from the business domain. Finally, we show how the postulates were addressed in the literature. The existence of such a correspondence allows us to prove that the logic generated by any subset of these postulates is sound and complete with respect to models that are based on the corresponding frames. The ultimate goal of this paper is to further assess the logic of knowledge and commitments (CTLKC+) from a new perspective (i.e., the soundness and completeness). Consequently, this work advances the literature of logics in MASs and closes a gap that has not been explored before.

On the soundness, completeness and applicability of the logic of knowledge and communicative commitments in multi-agent systems

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Khalid Sultan

Author Tools

Chat about Author