Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
References
All Topics
Computer Science

Modelling norms for autonomous agents

Profile image of Fabiola LopezFabiola Lopez

Proceedings of the Fourth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, 2003. ENC 2003.

https://doi.org/10.1109/ENC.2003.1232900
visibility

…

description

8 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Societies are regulated by norms and, consequently, autonomous agents that want to be part of them must be able to reason about norms. However, no reasoning can be done if agents lack a model of norms that allows them to know how by complying with norms some of their goals might be affected. In this paper, a general model of norms is proposed. By contrast with current models of norms, our model emphasises those aspects that autonomous agents might consider before taking decisions regarding norms. The model is applied to represent the most common kinds of norms that exist in a society, and its effectiveness to design systems of norms is shown.

Related papers

Modeling Norms Embedded in Society: Ethics and Senstitive Design
Rob Christiaanse

FLAP, 2018

This special issue contains the journal version of four contributions to the Handbook of Normative Multi-Agent Systems (NorMAS), which will appear at College Publications. The NorMAS initiative aims at providing a comprehensive coverage of both the state of the art and future research perspectives in the interdisciplinary field of normative multi-agent systems. It is meant to be an open community effort and a service to current and future students and researchers interested in this field. We invite the readers to buy the forthcoming handbook for a full view. Please visit the website for more information and feel free to send us comments, suggestions and proposals: http://normativemas.org/ The articles in this special issue and the chapters in the handbook give a survey of the area and may also contain a more personal view. For the survey part, at least the work reported in the NorMAS conference series is discussed. Instead of just a historical overview, the authors also address new developments, open topics and emerging areas. The handbooks appeal to all disciplines, including logic, computer science, law, philosophy, and linguistics. The articles in this special issue discuss the obtained results and open challenges in modeling normative multiagent systems during the last two decades. More information can be found in the handbook on deontic logic and normative systems, or the website http://deonticlogic.org/ The first paper in this special issue formally analyses the issue of modeling norm specification and verification in multiagent systems (MAS). In particular, for Alechina et al., violation conditions of regulative norms may correspond to conditions on states, actions, or arbitrary temporal patterns. They may be specified semantically or expressed syntactically in a suitable temporal logic, or in a programming language. Verification problems for norms or rather for normative systems involve verifying consistency of norms, verifying whether violation conditions hold, and finally verifying whether a system where norms are enforced satisfies some system objective.

View PDFchevron_right
Constraining autonomy through norms
Michael Luck

2002

Despite many efforts to understand why and how norms can be incorporated into agents and multi-agent systems, there are still several gaps that must be filled. This paper focuses on one of the most important processes concerned with norms, namely that of norm compliance. However, instead of taking a static view of norms in which norms are straighforwardly complied with, we adopt a more dynamic view in which an agent's motivations, and therefore its autonomy, play an important role. We analyse the motivations that an agent might have to comply with norms, and then formally propose a set of strategies for use by agents in norm-based systems. Finally, through some simulation experiments, the effects of autonomous norm compliance in both individual agents and societies are analysed.

View PDFchevron_right
Norm Aware Agent Systems
Nir Oren

Abstract In this paper, we outline an approach for implementing agents that function in a norm-aware manner; that is, agents that are capable of reasoning about, and acting, due to social obligations imposed upon them. We contrast our approach with more traditional techniques for creating agents, namely the BDI approach, and detail existing work in the area. Finally, we describe the domain in which we ground our work. Keywords: Agents, Norms, Architecture, Practical Reasoning

View PDFchevron_right
A normative framework for agent-based systems
Michael Luck

Computational & Mathematical …, 2006

One of the key issues in the computational representation of open societies relates to the introduction of norms that help to cope with the heterogeneity, the autonomy and the diversity of interests among their members. Research regarding this issue presents two omissions. One is the lack of a canonical model of norms that facilitates their implementation, and that allows us to describe the processes of reasoning about norms. The other refers to considering, in the model of normative multi-agent systems, the perspective of individual agents and what they might need to effectively reason about the society in which they participate. Both are the concerns of this paper, and the main objective is to present a formal normative framework for agent-based systems that facilitates their implementation.

View PDFchevron_right

References (22)

  1. R. Axelrod. An evolutionary approch to norms. The American Political Science Review, 80(4):1095-1111, 1986.
  2. M. Barbuceanu, T. Gray, and S. Mankovski. The role of obligations in multiagent coordination. Applied Ar- tificial Intelligence, 13(1/2):11-38, 1999.
  3. M. Boman. Norms in artificial decision making. Arti- ficial Intelligence and Law, 7(1):17-35, 1999.
  4. C. Castelfranchi. Commitments: From individual in- tentions to groups and organizations. In V. Lesser and L. Gasser, editors, Proceedings of the First In- ternational Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (IC- MAS'95), pages 186-196. AAAI Press/MIT Press, 1995.
  5. R. Conte and C. Castelfranchi. Norms as mental ob- jects. From normative beliefs to normative goals. In C. Castelfranchi and J. P. Müller, editors, From Reac- tion to Cognition (MAAMAW'93), LNAI 957, pages 186-196. Springer-Verlag, 1995.
  6. F. Dignum. Autonomous agents with norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1):69-79, 1999.
  7. F. Dignum, D. Morley, E. Sonenberg, and L. Caven- don. Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In E. H. Durfee, editor, Proceedings on the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-00), pages 111-118. IEEE Computer Society, 2000.
  8. M. d'Inverno and M. Luck. Understanding Agent Sys- tems. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
  9. M. Esteva, J. Padget, and C. Sierra. Formal- izing a language for institutions and norms. In J. Meyer and M. Tambe, editors, Intelligent Agents VIII (ATAL'01), LNAI 2333, pages 348-366. Springer- Verlag, 2001.
  10. N. Jennings. Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 8(3):223-250, 1993.
  11. A. Jones and M. Sergot. Deontic logic in the repre- sentation of law: Towards a methodology. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1(1):45-64, 1992.
  12. A. Jones and M. Sergot. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 4(3):429-445, 1996.
  13. F. López y López and M. Luck. Towards a model of the dynamics of normative multi-agent systems. In G. Lindemann, D. Moldt, M. Paolucci, and B. Yu, editors, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems: Theories and Applications (RASTA'02) at AAMAS'02, pages 175- 193. University of Hamburg, 2002.
  14. F. López y López, M. Luck, and M. d'Inverno. Con- straining autonomy through norms. In C. Castel- franchi and W. Johnson, editors, Proceedings of The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems AAMAS'02, pages 674-681. ACM Press, 2002.
  15. M. Luck, P. McBurney, and C. Preist. Agent technology: Enabling next generation computing (a roadmap for agent based computing). Technical re- port, AgentLink, 2003.
  16. Y. Moses and M. Tennenholtz. Artificial social sys- tems. Technical report CS90-12, Weizmann Institute, Israel, 1990.
  17. T. Norman, C. Sierra, and N. Jennings. Rights and commitments in multi-agent agreements. In Y. De- mazeau, editor, Proceedings of the Third Interna- tional Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS- 98), pages 222-229. IEEE Computer Society Press, 1998.
  18. A. Ross. Directives and Norms. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1968.
  19. M. Singh. An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1):97-113, 1999.
  20. J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice-Hall, 1992.
  21. R. Tuomela and M. Bonnevier-Toumela. Social norms, task, and roles. Technical report HL-97948, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 1992.
  22. R. Tuomela and M. Bonnevier-Toumela. Norms and agreements. European Journal of Law, Philosophy and Computer Sience, 5:41-46, 1995.

Related papers

The Development of Normative Autonomous Agents: an Approach
Francisco Cunha, Marx Viana

Open multi-agent systems (MASs) act as societies in which autonomous and heterogeneous agents can work towards similar or different goals. In order to cope with the heterogeneity, autonomy and diversity of interests among the different agents in the society, open MASs establish a set of behavioral norms that is used as a mechanism to ensure a state of cooperation among agents. Such norms regulate the behavior of the agents by defining obligations, permissions and prohibitions. Fulfillment of a norm may be encouraged through a reward while violation of a norm may be discouraged through punishment. Although norms are promising mechanisms to regulate an agent’s behavior, we should note that each agent is an autonomous entity that is free to fulfill or violate each associated norm. Thus, agents can use different strategies when deciding to achieve their goals including whether to comply with their associated norms. Agents might choose to achieve their goals while ignoring their norms, thus overlooking the rewards or punishments they may receive. In contrast agents may choose to comply with all the norms although some of their goals may not be achieved. In this context, this paper proposes a framework for simulation of normative agents providing a basis for understanding the impacts of norms on agents.

View PDFchevron_right
How do norms emerge in multi-agent societies? Mechanisms design
Stephen Cranefield

2007

The Department of Information Science is one of seven departments that make up the School of Business at the University of Otago. The department offers courses of study leading to a major in Information Science within the BCom, BA and BSc degrees. In addition to undergraduate teaching, the department is also strongly involved in postgraduate research programmes leading to MCom, MA, MSc and PhD degrees. Research projects in spatial information processing, connectionist-based information systems, software engineering and software development, information engineering and database, software metrics, distributed information systems, multimedia information systems and information systems security are particularly well supported.

View PDFchevron_right
Human-inspired model for norm compliance decision making
Vicent Botti

Information Sciences, 2013

One of the main goals of the agent community is to provide a trustworthy technology that allows humans to delegate some specific tasks to software agents. Frequently, laws and social norms regulate these tasks. As a consequence agents need mechanisms for reasoning about these norms similarly to the user that has delegated the task to them. Specifically, agents should be able to balance these norms against their internal motivations before taking action. In this paper, we propose a human-inspired model for making decisions about norm compliance based on three different factors: self-interest, enforcement mechanisms and internalized emotions. Different agent personalities can be defined according to the importance given to each factor. These personalities have been experimentally compared and the results are shown in this article. agents take these motivations into account allows modelling different agent personalities. Moreover, we have carried out several experiments for illustrating the performance of these functions and the behaviour exhibited by the different agent personalities. This article is organized as follows: Section 2 describes how the existing literature has faced with the problem of making decisions about norm compliance in software agents; Section 3 introduces the running example used in this paper; Section 4 contains the basic definitions used in this paper; Section 5 describes the functions that allow agents to make decisions about norm compliance; Section 6 describes the experiments that have been carried out; and Section 7 contains conclusions and future works.

View PDFchevron_right
Representing Norms within Agent Systems
Nir Oren

Abstract By virtue of their nature, organisations impose rules of behaviour upon their constituent members. Such rules, which may be represented using obligations, permissions and prohibitions, form soft constraints, since actions contrary to these rules can and do occur.

View PDFchevron_right
The Immergence of Norms in Agent Worlds
giulia andrighetto
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Computer Science

    • Cited by

    Agent Communication and Institutional Reality
    Nicoletta Fornara

    Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2005

    In this paper we propose to regard an Agent Communication Language (ACL) as a set of conventions to act on a fragment of institutional reality, defined in the context of an artificial institution. Within such an approach, we first reformulate a previously proposed commitment-based semantics for ACLs. In particular we show that all commonly used types of communicative acts can be defined in terms of a single basic type, namely declarations, within an artificial institution that we call Basic Institution. We then go on defining special institutions, that augment the Basic Institution by adding ontological and normative elements. Finally, as an example of a special institution we give a partial definition of the institution of English Auctions.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Situated artificial institutions: stability, consistency, and flexibility in the regulation of agent societies
    Maiquel De Brito

    Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2017

    In multi-agent systems, norms are a usual way to regulate the behaviour of autonomous agents. To be stable in different circumstances, norms are specified using high level terms, abstracting from the particular dynamics of the environment where the agents are situated. However, applying these norms requires a proper link with a concrete environment. Detaching that link from the norms themselves provides stability to the normative regulation but raises consistency and flexibility issues. Consistency is achieved when the abstract norms are coherent with the environment under regulation. Flexibility is achieved when different kinds of norms share the same interpretation about the environmental state. These properties are provided in some current works. However, since they are interrelated, there is not, to our knowledge, a single proposal providing all of them. This paper proposes the situated artificial institution (SAI) model to address these three issues-stability, consistency, and flexibility-by conceiving norms as part of institutions that provide, through the process of constitution, a social interpretation of the environmental state. After the presentation of the formalised model of SAI, a case study is used to illustrate and test this approach.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved