skip to main content
research-article

Group Norms for Multi-Agent Organisations

Published:06 June 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Normative multi-agent systems offer the ability to integrate social and individual factors to provide increased levels of fidelity with respect to modelling social phenomena, such as cooperation, coordination, group decision making, and organization, in both human and artificial agent systems. An important open research issue refers to group norms, that is, norms that govern groups of agents. Depending on the interpretation, group norms may be intended to affect the group as a whole, each member of a group, or some members of the group. Moreover, upholding group norms may require coordination among the members of the group. We have identified three sets of agents affected by group norms, namely, (i) the addressees of the norm, (ii) those that will act on it, and (iii) those that are responsible for ensuring norm compliance. We present a formalism to represent these, connecting it to a minimalist agent organisation model. We use our formalism to develop a reasoning mechanism that enables agents to identify their position with respect to a group norm to further support agent autonomy and coordination when deciding on possible courses of action.

References

  1. Thomas Ågotnes and Natasha Alechina. 2011. Reasoning about joint action and coalitional ability in Kn with intersection. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems (CLIMA’11) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 6814. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 139--156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Huib Aldewereld, Virginia Dignum, and Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos. 2013. We ought to; they do; blame the management! - A conceptualisation of group norms. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX—COIN 2013 International Workshops, [email protected], St. Paul, MN, USA, May 6, 2013, [email protected], Dunedin, New Zealand, December 3, 2013, Revised Selected Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Tina Balke, Frank Dignum, M. Birna van Riemsdijk, and Amit K. Chopra (Eds.), Vol. 8386. Springer, Berlin, 195--210. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. A. R. Anderson. 1958. A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67 (1958), 100--103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, and Federico Capuzzimati. 2014. A commitment-based infrastructure for programming socio-technical systems. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 14, 4 (2014), 23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Marco Battaglini, Rebecca Morton, and Thomas Palfrey. 2005. Efficiency, Equity, and Timing in Voting Mechanisms. Working Papers 81. Princeton Univ., Dept. of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff. 1988. Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives. Theoria 54, 3 (1988), 175--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. G. Boella and L. van der Torre. 2004. Normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of Trust in Agent Societies Workshop at AAMAS’04. New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Stefano Borgo. 2007. Coalitions in action logic. In Proceedings 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’07). Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1822--1827. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Jan Broersen, Frank Dignum, Virginia Dignum, and John-Jules Ch. Meyer. 2004. Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In Deontic Logic in Computer Science (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Alessio Lomuscio and Donald Nute (Eds.), Vol. 3065. Springer, Berlin, 43--56.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Jan Broersen, Andreas Herzig, and Nicolas Troquard. 2009. What groups do, can do, and know they can do: An analysis in normal modal logics. J. Appl. Non-Classical Logics (2009), 261--290.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Henrique Lopes Cardoso and Eugénio Oliveira. 2009. Flexible deadlines for directed obligations in agent-based business contracts. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (Vol. 2) (AAMAS’’09). Int’l Foundation for Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 1307--1308. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. José Carmo. 2010. Collective agency, direct action and dynamic operators. Logic J. IGPL 18, 1 (2010), 66--98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. José Carmo and Olga Pacheco. 2001. Deontic and action logics for organized collective agency, modeled through institutionalized agents and roles. Fundam. Inform. 48, 2--3 (2001), 129--163. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Amit K. Chopra, Fabiano Dalpiaz, F. Basak Aydemir, Paolo Giorgini, John Mylopoulos, and Munindar P. Singh. 2014. Protos: Foundations for engineering innovative sociotechnical systems. In Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), 2014 IEEE 22nd International. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 53--62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Keith L. Clark. 1978. Negation as failure. In Logic and Data Bases, Hervé Gallaire and Jack Minker (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 293--322. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3384-5_11Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Tiago de Lima, Lambér Royakkers, and Frank Dignum. 2010. A logic for reasoning about responsibility. Logic J. IGPL 18, 1 (2010), 99--117. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzp073Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Robert Demolombe and Vincent Louis. 2006. Norms, institutional power and roles: Towards a logical framework. In Foundations of Intelligent Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4203. Springer, Berlin, 514--523. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11875604_58 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Virginia Dignum. 2004. A Model for Organizational Interaction: Based on Agents, Founded in Logic. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Virginia Dignum and Frank Dignum. 2011. A logic of agent organizations. Logic J. IGPL (2011). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzr041Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Melvin J. Dubnick and H. G. Frederickson. 2014. Accountable Governance: Problems and Promises. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. E. Allen Emerson. 1990. Temporal and modal logic. In Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, J. van Leeuwen (Ed.). Vol. B. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 955--1072. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Marc Esteva, Juan A. Rodríguez-Aguilar, Carles Sierra, Pere Garcia, and Josep Lluís Arcos. 2001. On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 1991. Springer, Berlin, 126--147. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44682-6_8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Noah E. Friedkin. 1986. A formal theory of social power. J. Math. Sociol. 12, 2 (1986), 103--126.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. A. García-Camino, P. Noriega, and J.-A. Rodríguez-Aguilar. 2005. Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In Procs. 4th Int’l Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’’05). ACM, New York, NY, 667--673. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1082473.1082575 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Andrés García-Camino, Juan Antonio Rodríguez-Aguilar, and Wamberto Vasconcelos. 2008. A distributed architecture for norm management in multi-agent systems. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems III, Jaime Simão Sichman, Julian Padget, Sascha Ossowski, and Pablo Noriega (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4870. Springer, Berlin, 275--286. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79003-7_20 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Malik Ghallab, Dana Nau, and Paolo Traverso. 2004. Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Davide Grossi, Frank Dignum, Lambèr Royakkers, and Jean-Jules Meyer. 2004. Collective obligations and agents: Who gets the blame? In Deontic Logic in Computer Science (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Vol. 3065. Springer, Berlin, 129--145. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25927-5_9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Davide Grossi and Andrew Jones. 2013. Constitutive Norms and Counts-as Conditionals. Vol. 1. College Publications, London, 407--441.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Davide Grossi, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, and Frank Dignum. 2005. Modal logic investigations in the semantics of counts-as. In Procs 10th Int’l Conf. on AI & Law (ICAIL). ACM, New York, NY, 1--9. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1165485.1165487 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Davide Grossi, Lambér Royakkers, and Frank Dignum. 2007. Organizational structure and responsibility. Artif. Intell. Law 15, 3 (2007), 223--249. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9054-0 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Paul Halmos. 1960. Naïve Set Theory. Van Nostrand. Reprinted by Springer-Verlag, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, 1974.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu Han, S. Mandal, K. R. Pattipati, D. L. Kleinman, and M. Mishra. 2014. An optimization-based distributed planning algorithm: A blackboard-based collaborative framework. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybernet. 44, 6 (June 2014), 673--686. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2013.2276392Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahdi Hannoun, Olivier Boissier, Jaime Simão Sichman, and Claudette Sayettat. 2000. MOISE: An organizational model for multi-agent systems. In IBERAMIA-SBIA (LNCS), Vol. 1952. Springer, Berlin. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Andreas Schmidt Jensen, Virginia Dignum, and Jørgen Villadsen. 2014. The AORTA architecture: Integrating organizational reasoning in Jason. In Engineering Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, Berlin, 127--145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Andrew J. I. Jones and Marek J. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic J. IGPL 4, 3 (1996), 427--443.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Gideon Juve and Ewa Deelman. 2010. Scientific workflows and clouds. Crossroads 16, 3 (March 2010), 14--18. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1734160.1734166 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Martin Kollingbaum and Tim Norman. 2003. NoA -- A normative agent architecture. In Procs. 18th Int’l Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1465--1466. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1630659.1630899 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Christian List and Philip Pettit. 2011. Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Alessio Lomuscio and Marek Sergot. 2002. On multi-agent systems specification via deontic logic. In Intelligent Agents VIII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2333. Springer, Berlin, 86--99. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45448-9_7 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Fabiola López y López. 2003. Social Power and Norms: Impact on Agent Behaviour. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southampton, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mairi McCallum, Wamberto Weber Vasconcelos, and Timothy J. Norman. 2008. Organizational change through influence. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 17, 2 (2008), 157--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Paul McNamara. 2006. Deontic logic. In Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century, Dov M. Gabbay and John Woods (Eds.). Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 7. North-Holland, 197--288. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80029-4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Felipe Meneguzzi, Odinaldo Rodrigues, Nir Oren, Wamberto W. Vasconcelos, and Michael Luck. 2015. BDI reasoning with normative considerations. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 43, 0 (2015), 127--146. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2015.04.011 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Dana Nau, Okhtay Ilghami, Ugur Kuter, J. William Murdock, Dan Wu, and Fusun Yaman. 2003. SHOP2: An HTN planning system. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 20 (2003), 379--404. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Pablo Noriega, Amit K. Chopra, Nicoletta Fornara, Henrique Lopes Cardoso, and Munindar P. Singh. 2013. Regulated MAS: Social perspective. Norm. Multi-Agent Syst. 4 (2013), 93--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Timothy J. Norman and Chris Reed. 2010. A logic of delegation. Artif. Intell. 174 (Jan. 2010), 51--71. Issue 1. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2009.10.001 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Nir Oren, Michael Luck, and Simon Miles. 2010. A model of normative power. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’’10). IFAAMAS, Richland, SC, 815--822. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. E. Ostrom. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Olga Pacheco and José Carmo. 2003. A role based model for the normative specification of organized collective agency and agents interaction. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 6, 2 (March 2003), 145--184. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021884118023 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Munindar P. Singh, Amit K. Chopra, and Nirmit Desai. 2009. Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Comput. 42, 11 (2009), 72--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Paolo Torroni, Federico Chesani, P. Yolum, Marco Gavanelli, Munindar P. Singh, Evelina Lamma, M. Alberti, and P. Mello. 2009. Modelling Interactions via Commitments and Expectations. IGI Global.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicolas Troquard. 2014. Reasoning about coalitional agency and ability in the logics of “bringing-it-about”. Autonom. Agents. Multi-Agent Syst. 28, 3 (2014), 381--407. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-013-9229-x Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. M. Birna van Riemsdijk, Koen Hindriks, and Catholijn Jonker. 2009. Programming organization-aware agents. In Engineering Societies in the Agents World X, Huib Aldewereld, Virginia Dignum, and Gauthier Picard (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 98--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Wamberto W. Vasconcelos, Andrés García-Camino, Dorian Gaertner, Juan A. Rodríguez-Aguilar, and Pablo Noriega. 2012. Distributed norm management for multi-agent systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 5 (April 2012), 5990--5999. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.108 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Wamberto W. Vasconcelos, Martin J. Kollingbaum, and Timothy J. Norman. 2009. Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 19, 2 (2009), 124--152. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9070-9 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Ryan K. Williams. 2014. Interaction and Topology in Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Group Norms for Multi-Agent Organisations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems
        ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems  Volume 11, Issue 2
        Special Section on Best Papers from SASO 2014 and Regular Articles
        July 2016
        267 pages
        ISSN:1556-4665
        EISSN:1556-4703
        DOI:10.1145/2952298
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 June 2016
        • Accepted: 1 January 2016
        • Revised: 1 October 2015
        • Received: 1 December 2014
        Published in taas Volume 11, Issue 2

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!