Source author record

Amit K. Chopra

Amit K. Chopra appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

5works
3topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Pippi: Practical Protocol Instantiation

A protocol specifies interactions between roles, which together constitute a multiagent system (MAS). Enacting a protocol presupposes that agents are bound to the its roles. Existing protocol-based approaches, however, do not adequately treat the practical aspects of how roles bindings come about. Pippi addresses this problem of MAS instantiation. It proposes the notion of a metaprotocol, enacting which instantiates a MAS suitable for enacting a given protocol. Pippi demonstrates the subtleties involved in instantiating MAS arising from protocol composition, correlation, and decentralization. To address these subtleties and further support practical application patterns, we introduce an enhanced protocol language, with support for parameter types (including role and protocol typed parameters, for metaprotocols), interface flexibility, and binding constraints. We discuss the realization of our approach through an extended agent architecture, including the novel concept of a MAS adapter for contact management. We evaluate Pippi's expressiveness by demonstrating common patterns for agent discovery.

preprint2020arXiv

An Evaluation of Communication Protocol Languages for Engineering Multiagent Systems

Communication protocols are central to engineering decentralized multiagent systems. Modern protocol languages are typically formal and address aspects of decentralization, such as asynchrony. However, modern languages differ in important ways in their basic abstractions and operational assumptions. This diversity makes a comparative evaluation of protocol languages a challenging task. We contribute a rich evaluation of modern protocol languages based on diverse approaches. Among the selected languages, Scribble is based on session types; Trace-C and Trace-F on trace expressions; HAPN on hierarchical state machines, and BSPL on information causality. Our contribution is four-fold. One, we contribute important criteria for evaluating protocol languages. Two, for each criterion, we compare the languages on the basis of whether they are able to specify elementary protocols that go to the heart of the criterion. Three, for each language, we map our findings to a canonical architecture style for multiagent systems, highlighting where the languages depart from the architecture. Four, we identify a few design principles for protocol languages as guidance for future research.

preprint2012arXiv

Interaction-Oriented Software Engineering: Concepts and Principles

Following established tradition, software engineering today is rooted in a conceptually centralized way of thinking. The primary SE artifact is a specification of a machine -- a computational artifact -- that would meet the (elicited and) stated requirements. Therein lies a fundamental mismatch with (open) sociotechnical systems, which involve multiple autonomous social participants or principals who interact with each other to further their individual goals. No central machine governs the behaviors of the various principals. We introduce Interaction-Oriented Software Engineering (IOSE) as an approach expressly suited to the needs of open sociotechnical systems. In IOSE, specifying a system amounts to specifying the interactions among the principals as protocols. IOSE reinterprets the classical software engineering principles of modularity, abstraction, separation of concerns, and encapsulation in a manner that accords with the realities of sociotechnical systems. To highlight the novelty of IOSE, we show where well-known SE methodologies, especially those that explicitly aim to address either sociotechnical systems or the modeling of interactions among autonomous principals, fail to satisfy the IOSE principles.

preprint2012arXiv

The Meaning of Requirements and Adaptation

The traditional understanding of stakeholders requirements is that they express desirable relationships among phenomena in the relevant environment. Historically, software engineering research has tended to focus more on the problems of modeling requirements and deriving specifications given requirements, and much less on the meaning of a requirement itself. I introduce new concepts that elucidate the meaning of requirements, namely, the designated set and the falsifiability of requirements. By relying on these concepts, I (i) show that the adaptive requirements approaches, which constitute a lively and growing field in RE, are fundamentally flawed, (ii) give a sufficient characterization of vague requirements, and (iii) make the connection between requirements modeling and the Zave and Jackson sense of engineering. I support my claims with examples and an extensive discussion of the related literature. Finally, I show how adaptation can be framed in terms of Zave and Jackson's ontology.

preprint2012arXiv

True Peer Review

In computer science, conferences and journals conduct peer review in order to decide what to publish. Many have pointed out the inherent weaknesses in peer review, including those of bias, quality, and accountability. Many have suggested and adopted refinements of peer review, for instance, double blind peer review with author rebuttals. In this essay, I argue that peer review as currently practiced conflates the sensible idea of getting comments on a paper with the irrevocably-flawed one that we either accept or reject the paper, which I term gatekeeping. If we look at the two separately, then it is clear that the ills associated with current peer review systems are not due to the practice of getting comments, but due to the practice of gatekeeping. True peer review constitutes my proposal for replacing existing peer review systems. It embraces the idea of open debate on the merits of a paper; however, it rejects unequivocally the exercise of gatekeeping. True peer review offers all the benefits of current peer review systems but has none of its weaknesses. True peer review will lead to a truly engaged community of researchers and therefore better science.