Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1/2022

01.04.2022

Formal verification of group and propagated trust in multi-agent systems

verfasst von: Nagat Drawel, Jamal Bentahar, Amine Laarej, Gaith Rjoub

Erschienen in: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems | Ausgabe 1/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

While modeling trust in multi-agent systems provides a fundamental basis for promoting safe interactions and imitating agents reasoning mechanisms, exploiting model checking techniques to govern the trust relationships between group of agents and other agents is yet to be investigated. In this paper, we present a formal framework that allows individual and group of agents to reason about their trust toward other agents. In particular, we propose a branching time temporal logic BT which includes operators that express concepts such as everyone trust, distributed trust and propagated trust. We develop efficient and scalable reduction algorithms by which model checking BT logic is feasible at design time. We analyze the satisfiability and model checking problems of this logic. Moreover, we present in this manuscript BTT, a new BT Transformation tool, which is developed to automate the verification process. Finally, we demonstrate extensive experimental results, which confirm the theoretical findings and make our approach practical.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Saqqar, F., Bentahar, J., & Sultan, K. (2016). On the soundness, completeness and applicability of the logic of knowledge and communicative commitments in multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 43, 223–236.CrossRef Al-Saqqar, F., Bentahar, J., & Sultan, K. (2016). On the soundness, completeness and applicability of the logic of knowledge and communicative commitments in multi-agent systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 43, 223–236.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Saqqar, F., Bentahar, J., Sultan, K., Wan, W., & Asl, E. K. (2015). Model checking temporal knowledge and commitments in multi-agent systems using reduction. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 51, 45–68.CrossRef Al-Saqqar, F., Bentahar, J., Sultan, K., Wan, W., & Asl, E. K. (2015). Model checking temporal knowledge and commitments in multi-agent systems using reduction. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 51, 45–68.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bataineh, A. S., Bentahar, J., El Menshawy, M., & Dssouli, R. (2017). Specifying and verifying contract-driven service compositions using commitments and model checking. Expert Systems with Applications, 74, 151–184.CrossRef Bataineh, A. S., Bentahar, J., El Menshawy, M., & Dssouli, R. (2017). Specifying and verifying contract-driven service compositions using commitments and model checking. Expert Systems with Applications, 74, 151–184.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bentahar, J., Drawel, N., & Sadiki, A. (2022). Quantitative group trust: A two-stage verification approach. In The International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, (pp. 20–20). Bentahar, J., Drawel, N., & Sadiki, A. (2022). Quantitative group trust: A two-stage verification approach. In The International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, (pp. 20–20).
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2012). Communicative commitments: Model checking and complexity analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 35, 21–34.CrossRef Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2012). Communicative commitments: Model checking and complexity analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 35, 21–34.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Benthem, J. (1984). Correspondence theory. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. 2, pp. 167–247). Springer.CrossRef Benthem, J. (1984). Correspondence theory. In D. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic (Vol. 2, pp. 167–247). Springer.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (1998). Principles of trust for MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In The Third International Conference on Multiagent Systems, ICMAS, (pp. 72–79). Castelfranchi, C., & Falcone, R. (1998). Principles of trust for MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In The Third International Conference on Multiagent Systems, ICMAS, (pp. 72–79).
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Chakraborty, P. S., & Karform, S. (2012). Designing trust propagation algorithms based on simple multiplicative strategy for social networks. Procedia Technology, 6, 534–539.CrossRef Chakraborty, P. S., & Karform, S. (2012). Designing trust propagation algorithms based on simple multiplicative strategy for social networks. Procedia Technology, 6, 534–539.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Christianson, B., & Harbison, W.S. (1996). Why isn’t trust transitive? In International Workshop on Security Protocols, (pp. 171–176). Springer. Christianson, B., & Harbison, W.S. (1996). Why isn’t trust transitive? In International Workshop on Security Protocols, (pp. 171–176). Springer.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Clarke, E. M., Emerson, A., & Sifakis, J. (2009). Model checking: Algorithmic verification and debugging. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 74–84.CrossRef Clarke, E. M., Emerson, A., & Sifakis, J. (2009). Model checking: Algorithmic verification and debugging. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 74–84.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., & Peled, D. (1999). Model Checking. MIT Press.MATH Clarke, E. M., Grumberg, O., & Peled, D. (1999). Model Checking. MIT Press.MATH
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3), 213–261.MathSciNetCrossRef Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. J. (1990). Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(2–3), 213–261.MathSciNetCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Desai, N., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRef Desai, N., Mallya, A. U., Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2005). Interaction protocols as design abstractions for business processes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 31(12), 1015–1027.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Drawel, N., Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., & Laarej, A. (2018). Verifying temporal trust logic using CTL model checking. In The 20th International Trust Workshop co-located with AAMAS/IJCAI/ECAI/ICML, (pp. 62–74). Drawel, N., Bentahar, J., El-Menshawy, M., & Laarej, A. (2018). Verifying temporal trust logic using CTL model checking. In The 20th International Trust Workshop co-located with AAMAS/IJCAI/ECAI/ICML, (pp. 62–74).
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Drawel, N., Bentahar, J., & Shakshuki, E. (2017). Reasoning about trust and time in a system of agents. In The 8th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT),Procedia Computer Science, (Vol. 109, pp. 632–639). Drawel, N., Bentahar, J., & Shakshuki, E. (2017). Reasoning about trust and time in a system of agents. In The 8th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT),Procedia Computer Science, (Vol. 109, pp. 632–639).
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Drawel, N., Qu, H., Bentahar, J., & Shakshuki, E. M. (2020). Specification and automatic verification of trust-based multi-agent systems. Future Generation Computer Systems, 107, 1047–1060.CrossRef Drawel, N., Qu, H., Bentahar, J., & Shakshuki, E. M. (2020). Specification and automatic verification of trust-based multi-agent systems. Future Generation Computer Systems, 107, 1047–1060.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat El Kholy, W., Bentahar, J., El Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2014). Modeling and verifying choreographed multi-agent-based web service compositions regulated by commitment protocols. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7478–7494.CrossRef El Kholy, W., Bentahar, J., El Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2014). Modeling and verifying choreographed multi-agent-based web service compositions regulated by commitment protocols. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(16), 7478–7494.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat El Kholy, W., Bentahar, J., El Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2017). SMC4AC: A new symbolic model checker for intelligent agent communication. Fundamenta Informaticae, 152(3), 223–271.MathSciNetCrossRef El Kholy, W., Bentahar, J., El Menshawy, M., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2017). SMC4AC: A new symbolic model checker for intelligent agent communication. Fundamenta Informaticae, 152(3), 223–271.MathSciNetCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., & Dssouli, R. (2010). Symbolic model checking commitment protocols using reduction. In The 8th International Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VIII, DALT. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 6619, pp. 185–203). El-Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., & Dssouli, R. (2010). Symbolic model checking commitment protocols using reduction. In The 8th International Workshop on Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VIII, DALT. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (Vol. 6619, pp. 185–203).
20.
Zurück zum Zitat El Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., El Kholy, W., & Laarej, A. (2018). Model checking real-time conditional commitment logic using transformation. Journal of Systems and Software, 138, 189–205.CrossRef El Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., El Kholy, W., & Laarej, A. (2018). Model checking real-time conditional commitment logic using transformation. Journal of Systems and Software, 138, 189–205.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Emerson, A. (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics, (pp. 995–1072). MIT Press. Emerson, A. (1990). Temporal and modal logic. In: Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics, (pp. 995–1072). MIT Press.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Emerson, A., & Halpern, J. Y. (1985). Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30(1), 1–24.MathSciNetCrossRef Emerson, A., & Halpern, J. Y. (1985). Decision procedures and expressiveness in the temporal logic of branching time. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 30(1), 1–24.MathSciNetCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Vardi, M. Y., & Moses, Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press.MATH Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Vardi, M. Y., & Moses, Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press.MATH
24.
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Herzig, A., Lorini, E., & Moisan, F. (2012). A simple logic of trust based on propositional assignments. In F. Paglieri, L. Tummolini, & R. Falcone (Eds.), The Goals of Cognition. Essays in Honour of Cristiano Castelfranchi, Tributes (pp. 407–419). College Publications. Herzig, A., Lorini, E., & Moisan, F. (2012). A simple logic of trust based on propositional assignments. In F. Paglieri, L. Tummolini, & R. Falcone (Eds.), The Goals of Cognition. Essays in Honour of Cristiano Castelfranchi, Tributes (pp. 407–419). College Publications.
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Huang, X., Kwiatkowska, M., & Olejnik, M. (2019). Reasoning about cognitive trust in stochastic multiagent systems. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 20(4), 21:1-21:64.MathSciNetCrossRef Huang, X., Kwiatkowska, M., & Olejnik, M. (2019). Reasoning about cognitive trust in stochastic multiagent systems. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, 20(4), 21:1-21:64.MathSciNetCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Jamali, M., & Ester, M. (2010). A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks. In The ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys, (pp. 135–142). ACM. Jamali, M., & Ester, M. (2010). A matrix factorization technique with trust propagation for recommendation in social networks. In The ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, RecSys, (pp. 135–142). ACM.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Kafalı, O., Ajmeri, N., & Singh, M.P. (2017). Kont: Computing tradeoffs in normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 3006–3012). AAAI’17. Kafalı, O., Ajmeri, N., & Singh, M.P. (2017). Kont: Computing tradeoffs in normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 3006–3012). AAAI’17.
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Kholy, W. E., Bentahar, J., Menshawy, M. E., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2014). Conditional commitments: Reasoning and model checking. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 24(2), 1–49.CrossRef Kholy, W. E., Bentahar, J., Menshawy, M. E., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2014). Conditional commitments: Reasoning and model checking. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 24(2), 1–49.CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Kong, J., & Lomuscio, A. (2017). Model checking multi-agent systems against LDLK specifications. In IJCAI, pp. 1138–1144. Kong, J., & Lomuscio, A. (2017). Model checking multi-agent systems against LDLK specifications. In IJCAI, pp. 1138–1144.
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Kouvaros, P., Lomuscio, A., Pirovano, E., & Punchihewa, H. (2019). Formal verification of open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, (pp. 179–187). Kouvaros, P., Lomuscio, A., Pirovano, E., & Punchihewa, H. (2019). Formal verification of open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, (pp. 179–187).
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Kupferman, O., Vardi, M. Y., & Wolper, P. (2000). An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. Journal of the ACM, 47(2), 312–360.MathSciNetCrossRef Kupferman, O., Vardi, M. Y., & Wolper, P. (2000). An automata-theoretic approach to branching-time model checking. Journal of the ACM, 47(2), 312–360.MathSciNetCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Liu, F., & Lorini, E. (2017). Reasoning about belief, evidence and trust in a multi-agent setting. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-agent Systems, (pp. 71–89) Liu, F., & Lorini, E. (2017). Reasoning about belief, evidence and trust in a multi-agent setting. In International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-agent Systems, (pp. 71–89)
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Lomuscio, A., & Michaliszyn, J. (2016). Model checking multi-agent systems against epistemic HS specifications with regular expressions. In Fifteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Lomuscio, A., & Michaliszyn, J. (2016). Model checking multi-agent systems against epistemic HS specifications with regular expressions. In Fifteenth International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Lomuscio, A., & Michaliszyn, J. (2016). Verification of multi-agent systems via predicate abstraction against ATLK specifications. In AAMAS Lomuscio, A., & Michaliszyn, J. (2016). Verification of multi-agent systems via predicate abstraction against ATLK specifications. In AAMAS
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Lomuscio, A., Pecheur, C., & Raimondi, F. (2007). Automatic verification of knowledge and time with NuSMV. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 1384–1389). IJCAI/AAAI Press. Lomuscio, A., Pecheur, C., & Raimondi, F. (2007). Automatic verification of knowledge and time with NuSMV. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, (pp. 1384–1389). IJCAI/AAAI Press.
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Marsh, S. (1994). Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stirling Marsh, S. (1994). Formalising trust as a computational concept. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stirling
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Nayak, A., Chhogyal, K., Ghose, A., & Hoa, D. (2019). A value based trust assessment model for multi-agent systems. In 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI. Nayak, A., Chhogyal, K., Ghose, A., & Hoa, D. (2019). A value based trust assessment model for multi-agent systems. In 28th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI.
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Parr, T. (2013). The Definitive ANTLR 4 Reference (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Programmers: The Pragmatic Bookshelf. Parr, T. (2013). The Definitive ANTLR 4 Reference (1st ed.). The Pragmatic Programmers: The Pragmatic Bookshelf.
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Parr, T., & Fisher, K. (2011). LL(*): The foundation of the ANTLR parser generator. In: M.W. Hall, D.A. Padua (eds.) In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, San Jose, CA, June 4–8, 2011, (pp. 425–436). ACM Parr, T., & Fisher, K. (2011). LL(*): The foundation of the ANTLR parser generator. In: M.W. Hall, D.A. Padua (eds.) In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation, PLDI 2011, San Jose, CA, June 4–8, 2011, (pp. 425–436). ACM
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Parr, T., Harwell, S., & Fisher, K. (2014). Adaptive LL(*) parsing: The power of dynamic analysis. In: A.P. Black, T.D. Millstein (eds.) In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages & Applications, OOPSLA 2014, part of SPLASH 2014, Portland October 20–24, 2014, (pp. 579–598). ACM Parr, T., Harwell, S., & Fisher, K. (2014). Adaptive LL(*) parsing: The power of dynamic analysis. In: A.P. Black, T.D. Millstein (eds.) In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages & Applications, OOPSLA 2014, part of SPLASH 2014, Portland October 20–24, 2014, (pp. 579–598). ACM
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Penczek, W., & Lomuscio, A. (2003). Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via bounded model checking. Fundamenta Informaticae, 55(2), 167–185.MathSciNetMATH Penczek, W., & Lomuscio, A. (2003). Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via bounded model checking. Fundamenta Informaticae, 55(2), 167–185.MathSciNetMATH
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Pnueli, A. (1977). The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, (pp. 46–57) Pnueli, A. (1977). The temporal logic of programs. In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, (pp. 46–57)
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Primiero, G. (2016). A calculus for distrust and mistrust. In: Trust Management X-10th IFIP WG 11.11 International Conference, IFIPTM. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, (Vol. 473, pp. 183–190). Primiero, G. (2016). A calculus for distrust and mistrust. In: Trust Management X-10th IFIP WG 11.11 International Conference, IFIPTM. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, (Vol. 473, pp. 183–190).
45.
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Primiero, G., & Raimondi, F. (2014). A typed natural deduction calculus to reason about secure trust. In Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, (pp. 379–382). IEEE Computer Society. Primiero, G., & Raimondi, F. (2014). A typed natural deduction calculus to reason about secure trust. In Twelfth Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, (pp. 379–382). IEEE Computer Society.
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Sardana, N., Cohen, R., Zhang, J., & Chen, S. (2018). A Bayesian multiagent trust model for social networks. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 5(4), 995–1008.CrossRef Sardana, N., Cohen, R., Zhang, J., & Chen, S. (2018). A Bayesian multiagent trust model for social networks. IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems, 5(4), 995–1008.CrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Schnoebelen, P. (2002). The complexity of temporal logic model checking. In: The 4th conference on Advances in Modal Logic, (pp. 393–436). Schnoebelen, P. (2002). The complexity of temporal logic model checking. In: The 4th conference on Advances in Modal Logic, (pp. 393–436).
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh, M. P. (2008). Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: AAAI (Vol. 8, pp. 176–181). Singh, M. P. (2008). Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: AAAI (Vol. 8, pp. 176–181).
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh, M.P. (2008). Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: D. Fox, C.P. Gomes (eds.) In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, Chicago, July 13–17, (pp. 176–181). AAAI Press. Singh, M.P. (2008). Semantical considerations on dialectical and practical commitments. In: D. Fox, C.P. Gomes (eds.) In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI, Chicago, July 13–17, (pp. 176–181). AAAI Press.
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh, M.P. (2011). Trust as dependence: A logical approach. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, (pp. 863–870) Singh, M.P. (2011). Trust as dependence: A logical approach. In: The 10th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, (pp. 863–870)
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Sultan, K., Bentahar, J., Wan, W., & Al-Saqqar, F. (2014). Modeling and verifying probabilistic multi-agent systems using knowledge and social commitments. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(14), 6291–6304.CrossRef Sultan, K., Bentahar, J., Wan, W., & Al-Saqqar, F. (2014). Modeling and verifying probabilistic multi-agent systems using knowledge and social commitments. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(14), 6291–6304.CrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Telang, P. R., Kalia, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2015). Modeling healthcare processes using commitments: An empirical evaluation. PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0141202.CrossRef Telang, P. R., Kalia, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2015). Modeling healthcare processes using commitments: An empirical evaluation. PLoS ONE, 10(11), e0141202.CrossRef
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Troquard, N. (2014). Reasoning about coalitional agency and ability in the logics of “bringing-it-about’’. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 28(3), 381–407.CrossRef Troquard, N. (2014). Reasoning about coalitional agency and ability in the logics of “bringing-it-about’’. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 28(3), 381–407.CrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2009). Verifying organizations regulated by institutions. In V. Dignum (ed.) Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems-Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, (pp. 367–396). IGI Global. Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2009). Verifying organizations regulated by institutions. In V. Dignum (ed.) Handbook of Research on Multi-Agent Systems-Semantics and Dynamics of Organizational Models, (pp. 367–396). IGI Global.
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Wahab, O. A., Bentahar, J., Otrok, H., & Mourad, A. (2018). Towards trustworthy multi-cloud services communities: A trust-based hedonic coalitional game. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 11(1), 184–201.CrossRef Wahab, O. A., Bentahar, J., Otrok, H., & Mourad, A. (2018). Towards trustworthy multi-cloud services communities: A trust-based hedonic coalitional game. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 11(1), 184–201.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Formal verification of group and propagated trust in multi-agent systems
verfasst von
Nagat Drawel
Jamal Bentahar
Amine Laarej
Gaith Rjoub
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2022
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems / Ausgabe 1/2022
Print ISSN: 1387-2532
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7454
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-021-09542-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2022

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 1/2022 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner