Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 371–398 | Cite as

I-ABM: combining institutional frameworks and agent-based modelling for the design of enforcement policies

Article

Abstract

Computer science advocates institutional frameworks as an effective tool for modelling policies and reasoning about their interplay. In practice, the rules or policies, of which the institutional framework consists, are often specified using a formal language, which allows for the full verification and validation of the framework (e.g. the consistency of policies) and the interplay between the policies and actors (e.g. violations). However, when modelling large-scale realistic systems, with numerous decision-making entities, scalability and complexity issues arise making it possible only to verify certain portions of the problem without reducing the scale. In the social sciences, agent-based modelling is a popular tool for analysing how entities interact within a system and react to the system properties. Agent-based modelling allows the specification of complex decision-making entities and experimentation with large numbers of different parameter sets for these entities in order to explore their effects on overall system performance. In this paper we describe how to achieve the best of both worlds, namely verification of a formal specification combined with the testing of large-scale systems with numerous different actor configurations. Hence, we offer an approach that allows for reasoning about policies, policy making and their consequences on a more comprehensive level than has been possible to date. We present the institutional agent-based model methodology to combine institutional frameworks with agent-based simulations). We furthermore present J-InstAL, a prototypical implementation of this methodology using the InstAL institutional framework whose specifications can be translated into a computational model under the answer set semantics, and an agent-based simulation based on the jason tool. Using a simplified contract enforcement example, we demonstrate the functionalities of this prototype and show how it can help to assess an appropriate fine level in case of contract violations.

Keywords

Policies Institutional framework Agent-based model Logic programming Enforcement 

References

  1. Ågotnes T, van der Hoek W, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA, Sierra C, Wooldridge M (2007) On the logic of normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence, JCAI 2007, Hyderabad, India, January 6–12, 2007Google Scholar
  2. Alberti M, Gavanelli M, Lamma E (2012) Deon +: abduction and constraints for normative reasoning. In: Artikis A, Craven R, Kesim Çiçekli N, Sadighi B, Stathis K (eds) Logic programs, norms and action, vol. 7360 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer Berlin, pp 308–328Google Scholar
  3. Alberti M, Gomes AS, Gonçalves R, Leite J, Slota M (2011) Normative systems represented as hybrid knowledge bases. In: Leite J, Torroni P, Ågotnes T, Boella G, van der Torre L (eds) Proceedings of the 12th international conference on computational logic in multi-agent systems, vol. 6814 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 330–346Google Scholar
  4. Andrighetto G, Conte R, Turrini P, Paolucci M (2007) Emergence in the loop: simulating the two way dynamics of norm innovation. In: Boella G, van der Torre L, Verhagen H (eds) Normative multi-agent systemsGoogle Scholar
  5. Balke T (2011) Towards the governance of open distributed systems—a case study in wireless mobile grids. Phd dissertation, University of BayreuthGoogle Scholar
  6. Balke T, Vos MD, Padget J (2011) Analysing energy-incentivized cooperation in next generation mobile networks using normative frameworks and an agent-based simulation. Futur Gener Comput Syst 27(8):1092–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baral C (2003) Knowledge representation, reasoning and declarative problem solving. Cambridge Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonabeau E (2002) Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(10):7280–7287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bordini RH, Hübner JF, Wooldridge M (2007) Programming multi-agent systems in agentspeak using Jason. Wiley series in agent technology. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broersen J, Dastani M, Hulstijn J, Huang Z, van der Torre L (2001) The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents, AGENTS ’01. ACM, New York, NY, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  11. Clarke EM, Emerson EA, Sistla AP (1986) Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Trans Program Lang Syst 8(2):244–263CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Cliffe O (2007) Specifying and analysing institutions in multi-agent systems using answer set programming. Ph.D. thesis, University of BathGoogle Scholar
  13. Cliffe O, De Vos M, Padget J (2007) Specifying and reasoning about multiple institutions. In: Coin, Vol. 4386 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 67–85Google Scholar
  14. Criado N, Argente E, Botti VJ (2010) A BDI architecture for normative decision making. In: van der Hoek W, Kaminka GA, Lespérance Y, Luck M, Sen S (eds) International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. IFAAMAS, pp 1383–1384Google Scholar
  15. De Vos M, Padget J, Satoh K (2011) Legal modelling and reasoning using institutions. In: Tojo S (ed) Proceedings of JURISIN 2010, vol. 6797 of LNCS. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Denecker M (2004) What’s in a model? Epistemological analysis of logic programming. In: Proceedings of the ninth international conference (KR2004) on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. pp 106–113Google Scholar
  17. Dignum F, Morley D, Sonenberg E, Cavedon L (2000) Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In: International conference on multi-agent systems, vol 0, p 0111Google Scholar
  18. Epstein JM, Axtell R (1996) Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Esteva M, de la Cruz D, Sierra C (2002) ISLANDER: an electronic institutions editor. In: International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. ACM, pp 1045–1052Google Scholar
  20. Esteva M, Rosell B, Rodríguez-Aguilar JA, Arcos JL (2004) AMELI: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Jennings N (ed) Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS 2004), vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 236–243Google Scholar
  21. Gebser M, Kaminski R, Kaufmann B, Ostrowski M, Schaub T, Thiele S (2008) Engineering an incremental ASP solver. In: Garcia de la Banda M, Pontelli E (eds) Logic programming, vol. 5366 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 190–205Google Scholar
  22. Gebser M, Kaufmann B, Neumann A, Schaub T (2007) Conflict-driven answer set solving. In: Proceeding of IJCAI07, pp 386–392Google Scholar
  23. Gelfond M, Lifschitz V (1991) Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Gener Comput 9(3–4):365–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (2005) Simulation for the social scientist, 2nd edn. Open University Press, New York CityGoogle Scholar
  25. Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in RuleML. Int J Coop Inf Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Governatori G, Rotolo A (2004) Defeasible logic: agency, intention and obligation. In: Lomuscio A, Nute D (eds) Deontic logic in computer science, vol 3065 of LNAI. Springer, Berlin, pp 114–128Google Scholar
  27. Grossi D (2007) Designing invisible handcuffs. Formal investigations in institutions and organizations for multi-agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. Gulyás L (2005) Understanding emergent social phenomena: methods, tools and applications for agent-based modeling. Ph.D. thesis, Computer and Automation Research Institute, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
  29. Helbing D, Balietti S (2011) How to do agent-based simulations in the future: from modeling social mechanisms to emergent phenomena and interactive systems design. Working Paper 11-06-024, Santa Fe InstituteGoogle Scholar
  30. Herrestad H (1991) Norms and formalization. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ICAIL’91. ACM Press, New York, pp 175–184Google Scholar
  31. Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Hübner JF, Sichman JS, Boissier O (2007) Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE. IJAOSE 1(3/4):370–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jager W (2000) Modelling consumer behaviour. Ph.D. thesis, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones AJ, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. ACM Comput Surv 28(4):121 Read 28/11/2004Google Scholar
  35. Jones AJI, Sergot M (1993) On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification. Wiley, New York, pp 275–307Google Scholar
  36. Ligeza A (2006) Logical foundations for rule-based systems, vol. 11 of studies in computational intelligence. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Macy MW, Willer R (2002) From factors to actors: computational sociology and agent-based modeling. Annu Rev Sociol 28:143–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meneguzzi FR, Luck M (2009) Norm-based behaviour modification in BDI agents. In: Sierra C, Castelfranchi C, Decker KS, Sichman JS (eds) International conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, vol 1. IFAAMAS, pp 177–184Google Scholar
  39. Morales J, López-Sánchez M, Esteva M (2011) Evaluation of an automated mechanism for generating new regulations. In: Lozano J, Gámez J, Moreno J (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence, vol. 7023 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  40. Noriega P (1997) Agent mediated auctions: the Fishmarket Metaphor. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar
  41. North DC (1994) Institutions matter. Economic History 9411004, EconWPAGoogle Scholar
  42. Okouya D, Dignum V (2008) OperettA: a prototype tool for the design, analysis and development of multi-agent organizations. In: AAMAS (Demos). IFAAMAS, pp 1677–1678Google Scholar
  43. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 18th printing (2006)Google Scholar
  44. Prakken H, Sergot MJ (1996) Contrary-to-duty obligations. Studia Logica (SLOGICA) 57(1):91–115MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1995) BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on multiagent systemsGoogle Scholar
  46. Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P, Cory HT (1986) The British nationality act as a logic program. Commun ACM 29(5):370–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sierra C, Thangarajah J, Padgham L, Winikoff M (2007) Designing institutional multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Agent-oriented software engineering VII. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  48. Vázquez-Salceda J (2003) The role of norms and electronic institutions in multi-agent systems applied to complex domains. The HARMONIA framework. Ph.D. thesis, Technical University of CataloniaGoogle Scholar
  49. Vickers G (1973) Values, norms and policies. Policy Sci 4:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wooldridge MJ, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10(2):115–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Research in Social SimulationUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations