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.
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- A. R. Anderson. 1958. A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67 (1958), 100--103.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff. 1988. Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives. Theoria 54, 3 (1988), 175--199.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- José Carmo. 2010. Collective agency, direct action and dynamic operators. Logic J. IGPL 18, 1 (2010), 66--98.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Virginia Dignum. 2004. A Model for Organizational Interaction: Based on Agents, Founded in Logic. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universiteit Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Virginia Dignum and Frank Dignum. 2011. A logic of agent organizations. Logic J. IGPL (2011). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/jzr041Google Scholar
- Melvin J. Dubnick and H. G. Frederickson. 2014. Accountable Governance: Problems and Promises. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Noah E. Friedkin. 1986. A formal theory of social power. J. Math. Sociol. 12, 2 (1986), 103--126.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Malik Ghallab, Dana Nau, and Paolo Traverso. 2004. Automated Planning: Theory & Practice. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- Davide Grossi and Andrew Jones. 2013. Constitutive Norms and Counts-as Conditionals. Vol. 1. College Publications, London, 407--441.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Paul Halmos. 1960. Naïve Set Theory. Van Nostrand. Reprinted by Springer-Verlag, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, 1974.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
- Andrew J. I. Jones and Marek J. Sergot. 1996. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic J. IGPL 4, 3 (1996), 427--443.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Christian List and Philip Pettit. 2011. Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Fabiola López y López. 2003. Social Power and Norms: Impact on Agent Behaviour. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southampton, UK.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Cross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- E. Ostrom. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Munindar P. Singh, Amit K. Chopra, and Nirmit Desai. 2009. Commitment-based service-oriented architecture. IEEE Comput. 42, 11 (2009), 72--79. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- 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 Scholar
Digital Library
- Ryan K. Williams. 2014. Interaction and Topology in Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Index Terms
Group Norms for Multi-Agent Organisations
Recommendations
Identifying prohibition norms in agent societies
In normative multi-agent systems, the question of "how an agent identifies norms in an open agent society" has not received much attention. This paper aims at addressing this question. To this end, this paper proposes an architecture for norm ...
Identifying norms of behaviour in open multi-agent societies
ADS '11: Proceedings of the 2011 Workshop on Agent-Directed SimulationNorms have an obvious role in the coordinating, regulating, controlling and predicting agents' behaviours in software agents' societies. Most researchers assume that agents in their societies already know the norms as protocols or some other form. Some ...
Norms of Behaviour and Their Identification and Verification in Open Multi-Agent Societies
Norms have an obvious role in the coordinating and predicting behaviours in societies of software agents. Most researchers assume that agents already know the norms of their societies beforehand at design time. Others assume that norms are assigned by a ...






Comments