1 / 38

380 likes | 470 Vues

A logical framework for modelling eMAS. Pierangelo Dell’Acqua Dept. of Science and Technology - ITN Linköping University, Sweden. Luís Moniz Pereira Centro de Inteligência Artificial - CENTRIA Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal. PADL’03. Motivation.

Télécharger la présentation
## Luís Moniz Pereira Centro de Inteligência Artificial - CENTRIA Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**A logical framework**for modelling eMAS Pierangelo Dell’Acqua Dept. of Science and Technology - ITN Linköping University, Sweden Luís Moniz Pereira Centro de Inteligência Artificial - CENTRIA Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal PADL’03**Motivation**• To provide control over the epistemic agents in a Multi-Agent System (eMAS) the need arises to: - explicitly represent its organizational structure, - and its agent interactions. • We introduce a logical framework F, suitable for representing organizational structures of eMAS. • we provide its declarative and procedural semantics. - F having a formal semantics, it permits us to prove properties of eMAS structures.**Our agents**We have been proposing a LP approach to agents which can: • Reasonon their own or in collaboration • React to other agents and to the environment • Update their own knowledge, reactions, and goals • Interact by updating the theory of any other agent • Decide whether to accept an update subject to the requesting agent • Capture the representation of social evolution**Framework**This framework builds on the works: • Updating Agents P. Dell’Acqua & L. M. Pereira - MAS’99 • Multi-dimensional Dynamic Logic Programming L. A. Leite & J. J. Alferes & L. M. Pereira - CLIMA’01 and subsequent ones.**makes observations**• reciprocally updates other agents with goals and rules • thinks (rational) • selects and executes actions (reactive) Updating agent’s cycle • Updating agent:a rational, reactive agent that dynamically changes its own knowledge and goals. In its cycle, in some order, it:**Formulae:**L0¬ L1 ,... , Ln every Li is an atom or a default atom Logic framework Atomic formulae: Aatom not Adefault atom generalized rule Integrity constraints Action rules**Agents’ knowledge state sequences**• Knowledge states represent dynamically evolving states of an agent’s knowledge. They undergo change due to updates (DLP). • Given the current knowledge state Ps , its successor knowledge state Ps+1 is produced as a result of the occurrence of a set of parallel updates. • Update actions do not modify the current or any of the previous knowledge states. They affect only the successor state: the precondition of an action is evaluated in the current state, and its postcondition updates the successor state.**L2**L1 L1 L2 MDLP Motivating Example • Parliament issues law L1 at time t1 • A local authority issues law L2 at time t2 > t1 • Parliamentary laws override local laws, but not vice-versa: • More recent laws have precedence over older ones: • How to combine these two dimensions of knowledge precedence? • DLP with Multiple Dimensions (MDLP)**Multi-Dimensional Logic Programming**• In MDLP knowledge is given by a set of programs. • Each program represents a different piece of updating knowledge assigned to a state. • States are organized by a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) representing their precedence relation. • MDLP determines the composite semantics at each state according to the DAG paths. • MDLP allows for combining knowledge updates that evolve along multiple dimensions.**MDLP for Agents**• Flexibility, modularity, and compositionality of MDLP makes it suitable for representing the evolution of several agents’ combined knowledge How to encode, in a DAG, the relationships among every agent’s evolving knowledge, along its multiple dimensions ?**Hierarchy of agents**Temporal evolution of one agent Two basic dimensions of a MAS How to combine these dimensions into one DAG ?**Equal Role Representation**• Assigns equal role to the two dimensions:**Time Prevailing Representation**• Assigns priority to the time dimension:**Hierarchy Prevailing Representation**• Assigns priority to the hierarchy dimension:**A sub-agent Hierarchy**Inter- and Intra- Agent Relationships • The above representations refer to a community of agents • But they can be employed as well for relating the several sub-agents of an agent**Intra- and Inter- Agent Example**• Prevailing hierarchy for inter-agents • Prevailing time for sub-agents**MDLPs revisited**Def. MDLP – Multi-Dimensional Logic Program A MDLP is a pair (D,D), where: D=(V,E,w) is a WDAG - Weighted directed acyclic graph and, D={Pv : vV} is a set of generalized logic programs indexed by the vertices of D.**Weighted directed acyclic graphs**Def. Weighted directed acyclic graph (WDAG) • A weighted directed acyclic graph is a tuple D=(V,E,w) : • - V is a set of vertices, • - E is a set of edges, • - w : E R+ maps edges into positive real numbers, • - no cycle can be formed with the edges of E. We write v1 v2 to indicate a path from v1 to v2.**0.2**v1 v2 This paper: MDLPs revisited • We generalize the definition of MDLP by assigning weights to the edges of a DAG. • In case of conflictual knowledge, incoming into a vertex v by two vertices v1 and v2, the weights of v1 and v2 may resolve the conflict. • If the weights are the same both conclusions are false. (Or, two alternative conclusions can be made possible.) [ a ] v 0.1 {a} {not a}**Path dominance**Def. Dominant path • Let a1 an be a path with vertices a1,a2,…,an. • a1 an is a dominant path if there is no other path b1,b2,…,bm such that: • b1= a1, bm= an, and • - i, j such that ai= bj and w((ai-1,ai)) < w((bj-1,bj)).**Example: path dominance**a4 Let w((a5,a4)) < w((a3,a4)). Then, a1, a2 , a3, a4 is a dominant path. a3 a5 a2 a1**Example: formalizing agents**• Epistemic agents can be formalized via MDLPs. • Example: • Formalize three agents A, B, and C, where: • B and C are secretaries of A • B and C believe it is not their duty to answer phone calls • A believes it the duty of a secretary to answer phone calls**A**v1 v1 B v3 v3 C v4 v5 v5 v6 Example: formalizing agents A = (DA,DA) DA = ({v1},{},wA) Pv1 = {answerPhone secretary phoneRing} B = (DB,DB) DB = ({v3,v4},{(v4,v3)},wB) wB((v4,v3)) = 0.6 Pv3 = {} Pv4 = {phoneRing, secretary, not answerPhone} C = (DC,DC) DC = ({v5,v6},{(v6,v5)},wC) wC((v6,v5)) = 0.6 Pv5 = {} and Pv6 = Pv4 A B C**Logical framework F**Def. Logical framework F • A logical framework F is a tuple (A, L, wL) where: • A={1,…,n} is a set of MDLPs • L is a set of links among the i • and wL : L R+.**s**v2 v1 v2 v1 s Semantics of F • Declarative semantics of F is stable model based. Idea: The knowledge of a vertex v1overrides the knowledge of a vertex v2 wrt. a vertex s iff v1 prevails v2 wrt. s. Example: Pv1= {answerPhone} Pv2= {not answerPhone} if then Ms={answerPhone} • Procedural semantics based on a syntactic transformation.**Modelling eMAS**• Multi-agent systems can be understood as computational societies whose members co-exist in a shared environment. • A number of organizational structures have been proposed: • - coalitions, groups, institutions, agent societies, etc. • In our approach, agents and organizational structures are formalized via MDLPs, and glued together via F.**Modelling eMAS: groups**• A group is a system of agents constrained in their mutual interactions. • A group can be formalized in F in a flexible way: - the agents’ behaviour can be restricted to different degrees. - formalizing norms and regulations may enhance trustfulness of the group.**Example: formalizing groups**• Secretaries example: • Formalize group G, of agents A, B, and C, where: • B must operate (strictly) in accordance with A, while • C has a certain degree of freedom.**A**v1 v1 B v3 v3 G C v2 v4 v5 v5 v6 Example: formalizing groups F = (A,L,wL) A = {A,B,C,G ) L = {(v1,v2), (v2,v3), (v2,v5)} wL((v1,v2)) = wL((v2,v5)) = 0.5 wL((v2,v3)) = 0.7 G = (DG,DG) DG = ({v2},{},wG) Pv2 = {} G F**A**v1 v1 v1 v6 v5 B v3 v3 G 0.5 v4 v1 v3 0.5 0.6 C v4 v2 0.7 v5 v5 0.6 v6 Example: semantics Model of agent B: Mv3= {phoneRing, secretary, answerPhone} Model of agent C: Mv5= {phoneRing, secretary, not answerPhone}**Conclusions and future work**• Novel logical framework to model structures of epistemic agents: - declarative semantics is stable model based, - procedural semantics based on a syntactical transformation. • To represent F within the theory of each agent: - to empower the agents with the ability to reason about and modify the agents’ structure, - to handle open societies where agents can enter/leave the system.**an**an . . . ai . . . a2 bm ai-1 a1 . . . . . . b1 a1 Prevalence Def. Prevalence wrt. a vertex an Let a1 an be a dominant path with vertices a1,a2,…,an. Then, 1. every vertex aiprevails a1 wrt. an (1< i n). 2. if there exists a path b1 ai with vertices b1,…,bm,ai and w((ai-1,ai)) < w((bm,ai)), then every vertex bjprevails a1 wrt. an. 1. 2. a1 ai a1 bj an an**Links**Def. Link Given two WDAGs, D1 and D2, a link is an edge between a vertice of D1 and a vertice D2.**Joining WDAGs**Def. Link Given two WDAGs D1 and D2, a link is an edge between vertices of D1 and D2. Def. WDAGs joining Given n WDAGs Di = (Vi,Ei,wi), a set L of links, and a function wL : L R+, the joining({D1,…, Dn},L,wL) is the WDAG D=(V,E,w) obtained by the union of all the vertices and edges, and w(e) = wi(e) if eEi wL(e) if eL**Joined MDLP**Def. Joined MDLP • Let F=(A,L,wL) be a logical framework. • Assume that A={1,…,n} and each i=(Di,Di). • The joined MDLP induced by F is the WDAG =(D,D) where: • - D= ({D1,…, Dn},L,wL) and • - D= iDi**v2 v1**s Stable models of MDLP Def. Stable models of MDLP Let =(D,D) be a MDLP, where D=(V,E,w) and D={Pv : vV}. Let s V. An interpretation M is a stable model of at s iff: M = least( X Default(X, M) ) where: Q = v sPv Reject(s,M)= { r Pv2 : r’ Pv1, head(r)=not head(r’), M |=body(r’), } X = Q - Reject(s,M) Default(X,M) = {not A : (A¬Body) in X and M |=Body}**Stable models of F**Def. Stable models of F Let F=(A,L,wL) be a logical framework and the joined MDLP induced by F. M is a stable model of F at state s iff M is a stable model of at state s.

More Related