AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 359–378 | Cite as

The pursuit of computational justice in open systems

Original Article

Abstract

Many open networks, distributed computing systems, and infrastructure management systems face a common problem: how to distribute a collectivised set of resources amongst a set of autonomous agents of heterogenous provenance. One approach is for the agents themselves to self-organise the allocation of resources with respect to a set of agreed conventional rules; but given an allocation scheme which maps resources to those agents and a set of rules for determining that allocation scheme, some natural questions arise—Is this allocation fair? Is the allocation method effective? Is it efficient? Are the decision makers accountable? In this paper, we argue that some answers to these questions can be found in the formal characterisation of different aspects of ‘justice’ and that these different aspects need a principled operationalisation as policies for system management. We present a formal model and some experimental results, concluding that the different aspects are all inter-connected and that what is required is a comprehensive research programme in computational justice.

Keywords

Multi-agent systems Self-organisation Resource allocation Computational justice 

References

  1. Ardagna D, Panicucci B, Passacantando M (2011) A game theoretic formulation of the service provisioning problem in cloud systems. In: www ’11, pp 177–186Google Scholar
  2. Artikis A (2012) Dynamic specification of open agent systems. J Logic Comput 22(6):1301–1334MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balke T, de Vos M, Padget J (2013) I-ABM: combining institutional frameworks and agent-based modelling for the design of enforcement policies. Artif Intell Law. doi:10.1007/s10506-013-9143-1
  4. Bentham J (1789) An Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Payne, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard Y, Klejnowski L, Cakar E, Hähner J, Müller-Schloer C (2011) Efficiency and robustness using trusted communities in a trusted desktop grid. In: SASO Workshops (SASOW), pp 21–26. doi:10.1109/SASOW.2011.28
  6. Binmore K (2005) Natural justice. Oxford University, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birman K, Chockler G, van Renesse R (2009) Toward a cloud computing research agenda. SIGACT News 40(2):68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blader A, Tyler T (2003) A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 29(6):747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourazeri A, Pitt J, Almajano P, Rodriguez I, López-Sánchez M (2012) Meet the meter: visualising smartgrids using self-organising electronic institutions and serious games. In: SASO Workshops (SASOW), pp 145–150Google Scholar
  10. Chevaleyre Y, Endriss U, Lang J, Maudet N (2007) A short introduction to computational social choice. In: Proceedings of the 33rd conference on current trends in theory and practice of computer science (SOFSEM), no. 4362 in LNCS. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–69Google Scholar
  11. Choi S, Buyya R, Kim H, Byun E (2008) A taxonomy of desktop grids and its mapping to state of the art systems. Tech. rep., Grid Computing and Distributed Systems Laboratory, The University of MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox M, Arnold G, Villamayor Tomás S (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4):38Google Scholar
  13. Ding M, Cheng X, Xue G (2003) Aggregation tree construction in sensor networks. In: IEEE vehicular technology conference, vol 4, pp 2168–2172Google Scholar
  14. Elster J (1992) Local justice: how institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Ferscha A, Davies N, Schmidt A, Streitz N (2011) Pervasive socio-technical fabric. Procedia Comput Sci 7:88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaechter S (2006) Conditional cooperation: behavioral regularities from the lab and the field and their policy implications. Discussion Papers 2006-03, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  17. Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Greenberg J (1993) The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: Cropanzano R (ed) Justice in the work place: approaching fairness in human resource management, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 79–103Google Scholar
  19. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewitt C (1986) Offices are open systems. ACM Trans Office Inf Syst 4:271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones A, Artikis A, Pitt J (2013) The design of intelligent socio-technical systems. Artif Intell Rev 39(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones A, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. J IGPL 4(3):427–443MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kass N (2001) An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health 91(11):1776–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Katsh EE, Katsh ME, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution: resolving conflicts in cyberspace. Wiley, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J Econ Lit 41(4):1188–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kowalski R, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener Comput 4:67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lam WF (1998) Governing irrigation systems in nepal: institutions, infrastructure and collective action. ICS, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  28. López E (2010) The pursuit of justice: law and economics of legal institutions. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manvi SS, Kakkasageri MS, Pitt J (2009) Multiagent based information dissemination in vehicular ad hoc networks. Mobile Inf Syst 5(4):363–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state, and utopia. Basic Books, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  31. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. CUP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ostrom E, Ahn TK (2003) Introduction. In: Ostrom E, Ahn TK (eds) Foundations of social capital, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp xi–xxxixGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostrom E, Hess C (2006) A framework for analyzing the knowledge commons. In: Hess C, Ostrom E (eds) Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice, MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 41–82Google Scholar
  34. Pitt J, Schaumeier J (2012) Provision and appropriation of common-pool resources without full disclosure. In: Principles and practice of multi-agent systems, LNCS, vol 7455, Springer, pp 199–213Google Scholar
  35. Pitt J, Schaumeier J, Artikis A (2011) Coordination, conventions and the self-organisation of sustainable institutions. In: Agents in principle, agents in practice, LNCS, vol 7047, Springer, Berlin, pp 202–217Google Scholar
  36. Pitt J, Schaumeier J, Artikis A (2012) Axiomatisation of socio-economic principles for self-organising institutions: concepts, experiments and challenges. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 7(4):1–39. doi:10.1145/2382570.2382575 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pitt J, Schaumeier J, Busquets D, Macbeth S (2012) Self-organising common-pool resource allocation and canons of distributive justice. In: Sixth IEEE international conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems (SASO), pp 119–128Google Scholar
  38. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University, Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Rescher N (1966) Distributive justice. Bobbs-Merrill, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  40. Riveret R, Rotolo A, Sartor G (2012) Probabilistic rule-based argumentation for norm-governed learning agents. Artif Intell Law 20(4):383–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robert SC, Robert H, Evans WJ, Honemann DH, J BT (2000) Robert’s rules of order, newly revised, 10th edn. Perseus, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  42. Shum SB, Aberer K, Schmidt A, Bishop S, Lukowicz P, Anderson S, Charalabidis Y, Domingue J, de Freitas S, Dunwell I, Edmonds B, Grey F, Haklay M, Jelasity M, Karpistenko A, Kohlhammer J, Lewis J, Pitt J, Sumner R, Helbing D (2012) Towards a global participatory platform: democratising open data, complexity science and collective intelligence. Eur Phys J Spec Top 214:109–152Google Scholar
  43. Solum L (2004) Procedural justice. South Calif Law Rev 78(181):275–289Google Scholar
  44. Uphsur R (2002) Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Can J Public Health 93:101–103Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations