Skip to main content

Quantifying Relative Autonomy in Multiagent Interaction

  • Chapter
Agent Autonomy

Abstract

In the paper we introduce a quantitative measure of autonomy in multiagent interactions. We quantify and analyse different types of agent autonomy: (a) decision autonomy versus action autonomy, (b) autonomy with respect to an agent’s user, (c) autonomy with respect to other agents and groups of agents, and (d) a measure of group autonomy that accounts for the degree with which one group depends on another group. We analyse the problem of composing multiagent group with maximum overall autonomy and we prove that this problem is NP-complete. Therefore, finding the optimal group or agent with whom to share a task (or to whom to delegate a task) is in general computationally hard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  • Banzhaf, J. 1965. Weighted Voting Doesn’t Work: A Mathematical Analysis. Rutgers Law Review 19:317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, S., Martin, C. 1999. Agent Autonomy: Specification, Measurement, and Dynamic Adjustment. In Proceedings of the Autonomy Control Software Workshop, Agents ′99, pp. 8–15. May 1-5,1999, Seattle, WA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brainov S., Sandholm T. 1999. Power, Dependence and Stability in Multiagent Plans. In Proceedings of AAA1 ′99, pp. 11–16, Orlando, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. 1990. Social Power. In Demazeau Y. and Mller J.-P. eds. Decentralized AI Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Modeling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, pp. 49–62. Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C, 1995 Guaranties for Autonomy in Cognitive Agent Architecture. In N. Big SkyJennings and M. Wooldridge (eds.) Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pp. 56–70, Spinger-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. 2000. Founding Agent’s Autonomy on Dependence Theory, In proceedings of ECAI’01, pp. 353–357, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cormen, T., Leiserson, C, Rivest, R. 1990. Introduction to Algorithms. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, G. 1988. The Theory and Practice of Autonomy. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. 1970. Decision Theory for Decision Making. John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hexmoor, H. 2000a. A Cognitive Model of Situated Autonomy. In Proceedings of PR1CA1-2000 Workshop on Teams with Adjustable Autonomy, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hexmoor, H. 2000b. Towards Empirical Evaluation of Tradeoffs between Agent Qualities, In PRJMA-2000, (C.Big SkyZhang and V. Woo, eds), LNAI Volume 1881, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hexmoor, H., Duchscherer, H. 2001. Efficiency as Motivation for Teaming, In Proceedings of FLAIRS 2001, AAAI press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hexmoor, H., Kortenkamp, D. 2000. Autonomy Control Software, An introductory article of the special issue of Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, N., Sycara, K., Wooldridge, M. 1998. A Roadmap of Agent Research and Development. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1:7–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, D. Self, Society and Personal Choice. Columbia University Press, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. 1995. Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandholm, T., Larson, K., Anderson, M., Schehory, O., Tohme, F. 1999. Coalition Structure Generation with Worst Case Guarantees. Artificial Intelligence, 111: 209–238.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Schneewind, J. B., 1997. The Invention of Autonomy: A History of Modern Moral Philosophy, Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapley, L., Shubik, M. 1954. A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System. American Political Science Review, 48:787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Braynov, S., Hexmoor, H. (2003). Quantifying Relative Autonomy in Multiagent Interaction. In: Hexmoor, H., Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R. (eds) Agent Autonomy. Multiagent Systems, Artificial Societies, and Simulated Organizations, vol 7. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9198-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9198-0_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-4833-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-9198-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics