Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 161–196 | Cite as

Monitoring compliance with E-contracts and norms

  • Sanjay ModgilEmail author
  • Nir Oren
  • Noura Faci
  • Felipe Meneguzzi
  • Simon Miles
  • Michael Luck


The behaviour of autonomous agents may deviate from that deemed to be for the good of the societal systems of which they are a part. Norms have therefore been proposed as a means to regulate agent behaviours in open and dynamic systems, where these norms specify the obliged, permitted and prohibited behaviours of agents. Regulation can effectively be achieved through use of enforcement mechanisms that result in a net loss of utility for an agent in cases where the agent’s behaviour fails to comply with the norms. Recognition of compliance is thus crucial for achieving regulation. In this paper, we propose a general framework for observation of agents’ behaviour, and recognition of this behaviour as constituting, or counting as, compliance or violation. The framework deploys monitors that receive inputs from trusted observers, and processes these inputs together with transition network representations of individual norms. In this way, monitors determine the fulfillment or violation status of norms. The paper also describes a proof of concept implementation of the framework, and its deployment in electronic contracting environments.


E-contracts Norms Monitoring Multiagent systems 


  1. Alechina N, Dastani M, Logan B (2014) Norm approximation for imperfect monitors. In: International conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, AAMAS, IFAAMAS, pp 117–124Google Scholar
  2. Alechina N, Bulling N, Dastani M, Logan B (2015) Practical run-time norm enforcement with bounded lookahead. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), IFAAMAS, pp 443–451Google Scholar
  3. Bulling N, Dastani M, Knobbout M (2013) Monitoring norm violations in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2013 international conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS ’13, pp 491–498, Richland, SC. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent SystemsGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardoso HL, Oliveira E (2008) Electronic institutions for B2B: dynamic normative environments. Artif Intell Law 16:107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Conte R, Falcone R, Sartor G (1999) Agents and norms: How to fill the gap? Artif Intell Law 7:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daskalopulu A, Dimitrakos T, Maibaum T (2002) Evidence-based electronic contract performance monitoring. Group Decis Negot 11(6):469–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dastani M, Grossi D, Meyer J-JC, Tinnemeier N (2008) Normative multi-agent programs and their logics. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (KRAMAS’08), pp 236–243Google Scholar
  8. Derakhshan F, Bench-Capon TJM, McBurney P (2011) Dynamic assignment of roles, rights and responsibilities in normative multiagent systems. J Logic Comput 23:355–372MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Esteva M, Rosell B, Rodrguez-aguilar JA, Arcos JLl (2004) Ameli: an agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: 3rd International joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS), pp 236–243Google Scholar
  10. Fagundes MS, Ossowski S, Meneguzzi F (2014) Imperfect norm enforcement in stochastic environments: an analysis of efficiency and cost tradeoffs. In: Advances in artificial intelligence—IBERAMIA 2014, vol 8864. Springer, New York, pp 523–535Google Scholar
  11. Farrell ADH, Sergot M, Salle M, Bartolini Claudio (2005) Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. Int J Coop Inf Syst 4(2–3):99–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner A (1987) An artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. MIT Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Governatori G (2005) Representing business contracts in ruleml. Int J Coop Inf Syst 14(2–3):181–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Governatori G, Hulstijn Joris, Riveret R, Rotolo A (2007) Characterising deadlines in temporal modal defeasible logic. In: Proceedings of AI-2007, vol 4830 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp 486–496Google Scholar
  15. Governatori G, Rotolo A (2004) Modelling contracts using RuleML. In: Proceedings of Jurix 2004. IOS Press, New York, pp 141–150Google Scholar
  16. Grossi D (2007) Designing invisible handcufffs. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, SIKSGoogle Scholar
  17. Jakob M, Pchouek M, Chabera J, Miles S, Luck M, Oren N, Kollingbaum M, Holt C, Vazquez J, Storms P, Dehn M (2008) Case studies for contract-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), pp 55–62Google Scholar
  18. Jones AJI, Sergot M (1993) On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In: Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification. Wiley, New Jersey, pp 275–307Google Scholar
  19. Kollingbaum M (2005) Norm-governed Practical Reasoning Agents. PhD thesis, University of AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  20. Lopez F, Lopez Y, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2006) A normative framework for agent-based systems. Comput Math Organ Theory 12(2–3):227–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meneguzzi F, Modgil S, Oren N, Miles S, Luck M, Faci N, Holt C, Smith M (2009) Monitoring and explanation of contract execution: A case study in the aerospace domain. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp 77–84Google Scholar
  22. Meneguzzi FR, Miles S, Luck M, Holt C, Smith M, Oren N, Faci N, Kollingbaum M, Modgil S (2008) Electronic contracting in aircraft aftercare: a case study. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Industry and Applications TrackGoogle Scholar
  23. Meneguzzi FR, Modgil S, Oren N, Miles S, Luck M, Faci N (2012) Applying electronic contracting to the aerospace aftercare domain. Eng Appl Artif Intell 25(7):1471–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles S, Groth P, Luck M (2008) Handling mitigating circumstances for electronic contracts. In: Proceedings of the AISB 2008 symposium on behaviour regulation in multi-agent systems, pp 37–42. The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of BehaviourGoogle Scholar
  25. Modgil S, Faci N, Meneguzzi FR, Oren N, Miles S, Luck M (2009) A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), pp 153–160Google Scholar
  26. Molina-Jimenez C, Shrivastava S, Solaiman E, Warne J (2004) Run-time monitoring and enforcement of electronic contracts. Electron Commer Res Appl 3(2):108–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Neal S, Cole J, Linington PF, Milosevic Z, Gibson S, Kulkarni S (2003) Identifying requirements for business contract language: a monitoring perspective. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE international enterprise distributed object computing conference, pp 50–61. IEEE Comput. SocGoogle Scholar
  28. Oh J, Meneguzzi F, Sycara K, Norman TJ (2013) Prognostic normative reasoning. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(2):863–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oren N, Panagiotidi S, Vazquez-Salceda J, Modgil S, Luck M, Miles S (2008) Towards a formalisation of electronic contracting environments. In: Proceedings of the Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN 2008), pp 156–171Google Scholar
  30. Rao AS (1996) AgentSpeak(L): BDI agents speak out in a logical computable language. In: Van de Velde W, Perram JW (eds) Proceedings of the 7th European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent World, vol. 1038 of LNCS. Springer, New York, pp 42–55Google Scholar
  31. Searle JR (1997) The construction of social reality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. van der Torre Leendert, Tan Yao-Hua (1999) Diagnosis and decision making in normative reasoning. Artif Intell Law 7:51–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. von Wright GH (1951) Deontic logic. Mind 60:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woods WA (1970) Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Commun ACM 13(10):591–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu L, Jeusfeld MA (2003) Pro-active monitoring of electronic contracts. In: Proceedings of the 15th conference on advanced information systems engineering, vol 2681 of Lecture Notes of Computer Science. Springer, New York, pp 584–600Google Scholar
  36. Xu L, Jeusfeld MA, Grefen PWPJ (2005) Detection tests for identifying violators of multi-party contracts. ACM SIGecom Exch 5(3):19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yoshino H (1998) Logical structure of contract law system for constructing a knowledge base of the united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. Adv Comput Intell 2:2–11Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjay Modgil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nir Oren
    • 2
  • Noura Faci
    • 3
  • Felipe Meneguzzi
    • 4
  • Simon Miles
    • 1
  • Michael Luck
    • 1
  1. 1.King’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Université Lyon 1LyonFrance
  4. 4.Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations