Modeling Mental States in the Analysis of Multiagent Systems Requirements

  • Alexei Lapouchnian
  • Yves Lespérance
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4405)


This paper describes an agent-oriented requirements engineering approach that combines informal i * models with formal specifications in the multiagent system specification formalism CASL. This allows the requirements engineer to exploit the complementary features of the frameworks. i *can be used to model social dependencies between agents and how process design choices affect the agents’ goals. CASL can be used to model complex processes formally. We introduce an intermediate notation to support the mapping between i * models and CASL specifications. In the combined i *-CASL framework, agents’ goals and knowledge are represented as their mental states, which allows for the formal analysis and verification of, among other things, complex agent interactions where agents may have different goals and different (incomplete) knowledge. Our models can also serve as high-level specifications for multiagent systems.


Requirement Engineering Multiagent System Agent Interaction Primitive Action Situation Calculus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards Requirements-Driven Information Systems Engineering: The Tropos Project. Information Systems 27(6), 365–389 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chung, L.K., et al.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisitions. Science of Computer Programming 20, 3–50 (1993)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Giacomo, G., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.: ConGolog, A Concurrent Programming Language Based on the Situation Calculus. Artificial Intelligence 121, 109–169 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuxman, A., et al.: Specifying and Analyzing Early Requirements in Tropos. RE Journal 9(2), 132–150 (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gans, G., et al.: Requirements Modeling for Organization Networks: A (Dis-)Trust-Based Approach. In: Proc. RE’01, pp. 154–163 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jennings, N.R.: Agent-Oriented Software Engineering. In: Garijo, F.J., Boman, M. (eds.) MAAMAW 1999. LNCS, vol. 1647, pp. 1–7. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lapouchnian, A.: Modeling Mental States in Requirements Engineering — An Agent-Oriented Framework Based on i * and CASL. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of Computer Science, York University, Toronto (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lespérance, Y.: On the Epistemic Feasibility of Plans in Multiagent Systems Specifications. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 69–85. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCarthy, J., Hayes, P.: Some Philosophical Problems From the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence. Machine Intelligence 4, 463–502 (1969)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore, R.C.: A Formal Theory of Knowledge and Action. In: Hobbs, J.R., Moore, R.C. (eds.) Formal Theories of the Common Sense World, pp. 319–358. Ablex Publishing, Westport (1985)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Odell, J., Van Dyke Parunak, H., Bauer, B.: Extending UML for Agents. In: Proc. AOIS-2000, Austin, TX, USA, pp. 3–17 (2000)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Padgham, L., Lambrix, P.: Agent Capabilities: Extending BDI Theory. In: Proc. AAAI-2000, Austin, TX, USA, pp. 68–73 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling Rational Agents within a BDI Architecture. In: Proc. KR’91, pp. 473–484 (1991)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reiter, R.: The Frame Problem in the Situation Calculus: A Simple Solution (Sometimes) and a Completeness Result for Goal Regression. In: Lifschitz, V. (ed.) Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pp. 359–380. Academic Press, London (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reiter, R.: Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scherl, R.B., Levesque, H.: Knowledge, Action, and the Frame Problem. Artificial Intelligence 144(1–2), 1–39 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shapiro, S.: Specifying and Verifying Multiagent Systems Using CASL. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shapiro, S., Lespérance, Y.: Modeling Multiagent Systems with the Cognitive Agents Specification Language — A Feature Interaction Resolution Application. In: Castelfranchi, C., Lespérance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1986, pp. 244–259. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapiro, S., Lespérance, Y., Levesque, H.: The Cognitive Agents Specification Language and Verification Environment for Multiagent Systems. In: Proc. AAMAS’02, Bologna, Italy, pp. 19–26. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shapiro, S., et al.: Iterated Belief Change in the Situation Calculus. In: Proc. KR-2000, pp. 527–538 (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R., Massonet, P.: Goal-Directed Elaboration of Requirements for a Meeting Scheduler: Problems and Lessons Learnt. In: Proc. RE’95, York, UK, pp. 194–203 (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Otterloo, S., van der Hoek, W., Wooldrige, M.: Model Checking a Knowledge Exchange Scenario. Applied Artificial Intelligence 18(9-10), 937–952 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang, X., Lespérance, Y.: Agent-Oriented Requirements Engineering Using ConGolog and i *. In: Proc. AOIS-01, pp. 59–78 (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wooldridge, M.: Agent-Based Software Engineering. IEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 144(1), 26–37 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu, E.: Towards modeling and reasoning support for early requirements engineering. In: Proc. RE’97, Annapolis, USA, pp. 226–235 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexei Lapouchnian
    • 1
  • Yves Lespérance
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 3G4Canada
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3Canada

Personalised recommendations