Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 241–270 | Cite as

The open agent society: retrospective and prospective views

  • Jeremy PittEmail author
  • Alexander Artikis
Article

Abstract

It is now more than ten years since the EU FET project ALFEBIITE finished, during which its researchers made original and distinctive contributions to (inter alia) formal models of trust, model-checking, and action logics. ALFEBIITE was also a highly inter-disciplinary project, with partners from computer science, philosophy, cognitive science and law. In this paper, we reflect on the interaction between computer scientists and information and IT lawyers on the idea of the ‘open agent society’. This inspired a programme of research whose investigation into conceptual challenges has carried it from the logical specification of agent societies and dynamic norm-governed systems to self-organising electronic institutions, while developing several technologies for agent-based modelling and complex event recognition. The outcomes of this inter-disciplinary collaboration have also influenced current research into using the open agent society as a platform for socio-technical systems, and other collective adaptive systems. We present a number of research challenges, including the ideas of computational justice and polycentric governance, and explore a number of ethical, legal and social implications. We contend that, in order to address these issues and challenges, the continued inter-disciplinary collaboration between computer science and IT lawyers is critical.

Keywords

Computers and law Multi-agent systems Norm-governed systems Self-organising systems Event recognition  Ethical legal and social implications (ELSI) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is written in the honor and memory of Professor Jon Bing. Jon was one of the key senior personnel working on on the ALFEBIITE project at the University of Oslo, who were one of the original partners in the consortium. Jon in particular seemed able to resolve a tension that underlies a sort of Heisenberg’s Principle for computers and law: if one knows the direction in which a technology is heading, then one could not know what the law would decide; but if one asserted a legal decision, then the direction that the technology (or the use of technology) would take could not be known or predicted. Jon seemed to be able to recognize the entanglements and uniquely diagnose a disentanglement. In addition, Jon was a polymath whose knowledge and skill extended far beyond computers and law, but into the realms of music and science fiction, and oddly (but somehow characteristically) an affection for the pachyderm that was as steadfast and resolute as his belief in the proper and appropriate relationship between computer technology and law. But much more than this, Jon was a highly personable collaborator who kindly and strongly supported our faltering first steps in this research programme, and our interactions with him, especially as a result of a joint workshop that he kindly organised in Oslo, which heavily impacted our thinking and research directions (even if a dinner in Oslo had a correspondingly heavy impact on our bank accounts). His hand-written comments (in trademark purple ink) on a manuscript of the Open Agent Society paper is a much (personally) valued relic from the ALFEBIITE project. We would also like to acknowledge the many very helpful comments of the anonymous reviewers, and to acknowledge the contribution of Loretta Anania, the EU Project Officer responsible for the ALFEBIITE project.

References

  1. Alchourrón C, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Logic 50(2):510–530zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen C, Wallach W, Smit I (2006) Why machine ethics. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):12–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artikis A (2012) Dynamic specification of open agent systems. J Logic Comput 22(6):1301–1334zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artikis A, Sergot M, Paliouras G (2015) An event calculus for event recognition. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 27(4):895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Artikis A, Sergot M (2010) Executable specification of open multi-agent systems. Logic J IGPL 18(1):31–65zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin J (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Boella G, Pigozzi G, van der Torre L (2009) Normative framework for normative system change. In: Proceedings of international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS). ACM Press, pp 169–176Google Scholar
  8. Bragaglia S, Chesani F, Mello P, Sottara D (2012) A rule-based calculus and processing of complex events. In: Rules on the web: research and applications—6th international symposium, RuleML 2012, Montpellier, France, pp 151–166Google Scholar
  9. Brewka G (2001) Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. J Logic Comput 11(2):257–282zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broersen J (2009) Issues in designing logical models for norm change. In: Vouros G, Artikis A, Stathis K, Pitt J (eds) Proceedings of internation workshop in oprganised adaptation on multi-agent systems (OAMAS), vol. LNCS 5368. Springer, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  11. Bryant V (1985) Metric spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr H, Artikis A, Pitt J (2009) Presage-ms: metric spaces in presage. In: ESAW, pp 243–246Google Scholar
  13. Cavoukian A (2012) Privacy by design [leading edge]. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31(4):18–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chesani F, Mello P, Montali M, Torroni P (2010) A logic-based, reactive calculus of events. Fundam Inform 105(1–2):135–161zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Chesani F, Mello P, Montali M, Torroni P (2013) Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Auton Agents Multi-agent Syst 27(1):85–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daassi M, Favier M (2007) Developing a measure of collective awareness in virtual teams. Int J Bus Inf Syst 2(4):413–425Google Scholar
  17. Diaconescu A, Pitt J (2015) Holonic institutions for multi-scale polycentric self-governance. In: Ghose A, Oren N, Telang P, Thangarajah J (eds) COIN 2014, LNAI 9372. Springer, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  18. Dommel HP, Garcia-Luna-Aceves JJ (1995) Design issues for floor control protocols. In: Proceedings of symposium on electronic imaging: multimedia and networking, vol 2417. IS&T/SPIE, pp 305–316Google Scholar
  19. Forgy C (1982) Rete: a fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Artif Intell 19(3597):17–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frey S, Diaconescu A, Menga D, Demeure IM (2013) A holonic control architecture for a heterogeneous multi-objective smart micro-grid. In: 7th IEEE international conference on self-adaptive and self-organizing systems, SASO 2013, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  21. Giunchiglia E, Lee J, Lifschitz V, McCain N, Turner H (2004) Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif Intell 153(1–2):49–104zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goulev P, Stead L, Mamdani A, Evans C (2004) Computer aided emotional fashion. Comput Graph 28(5):657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Governatori G, Padmanabhab V, Rotolo A (2006) Rule-based agents in temporalised defeasible logic. In: Proceedings of Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI), LNCS 4099. Springer, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  24. Governatori G, Palmirani M, Riveret R, Rotolo A, Sartor G (2005) Norm modifications in defeasible logic. In: Proceedings of conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX). IOS Press, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  25. Governatori G, Rotolo A (2008) Changing legal systems: abrogation and annulment. Part I: Revision of defeasible theories. In: van der Meyden R, van der Torre L (eds) Proceedings of conference on deontic logic in computer science (DEON), LNCS 5076. Springer, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  26. Governatori G, Rotolo A (2008) Changing legal systems: Abrogation and annulment. Part II: Temporalised defeasible logic. In: Boella G, Pigozzi G, Singh M, Verhagen H (eds) Proceedings of workshop on normative multiagent systems (NORMAS), pp 112–127Google Scholar
  27. Governatori G, Rotolo A, Riveret R, Palmirani M, Sartor G (2007) Variants of temporal defeasible logics for modelling norm modifications. In: Proccedings of international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL). ACMGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hess C, Ostrom E (2006) Understanding knowledge as a commons. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Hewitt C (1986) Offices are open systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 4(3):271–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones A (2002) On the concept of trust. Decis Support Syst 33(3):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones AJ, Artikis A, Pitt J (2013) The design of intelligent socio-technical systems. Artif Intell Rev 39(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones AJI, Kimbrough SO (2008) The normative aspect of signalling and the distinction between performative and constative. J Appl Logic 6(2):218–228zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones A, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. J IGPL 4(3):427–443zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kellogg W, Erickson T (2002) Social translucence, collective awareness, and the emergence of place. A position paper for the role of place in shaping virtual community. In: Proceeding CSCWGoogle Scholar
  36. Kowalski R, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener Comput 4:67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamport L (1998) The part-time parliament. ACM Trans Comput Syst 16(2):133–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lessig L (2006) Code: and other laws of cyberspace, Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York City, NYGoogle Scholar
  39. Lomuscio A, Qu H, Raimondi F (2009) MCMAS: a model checker for the verification of multi-agent systems. In: Bouajjani A, Maler O (eds) Computer Aided Verification, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5643. Springer, pp 682–688Google Scholar
  40. Loui R (1992) Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative argument. In: Technical report. Washington University, Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  41. Luke S, Cioffi-Revilla C, Panait L, Sullivan K (2004) MASON: a new multi-agent simulation toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Swarmfest WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  42. Macbeth S, Busquets D, Pitt JV (2014) System modeling: principled operationalization of social systems using presage2. In: Gianni D, D’Ambrogio A, Tolk A (eds) Modeling and simulation-based systems engineering handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 43–66. (FirstView) Google Scholar
  43. Macbeth S, Pitt J (2014) Self-organising management of user-generated data and knowledge. Knowl Eng Rev 30(3):237–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Makinson D, van der Torre L (2000) Input–output logics. J Philos Logic 29:383–408zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michael K, Michael M, Perakslis C (2014) Be vigilant: there are limits to veillance. In: Pitt J (ed) The computer after me, chap 13. IC Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  46. Michael K, Michael M (2012) Implementing ‘namebers’ using microchip implants: the black box beneath the skin. In: Pitt J (ed) This pervasive day, chap 10. IC Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  47. Neville B, Pitt J (2008) PRESAGE: a programming environment for the simulation of agent societies. In: Programming multi-agent systems, 6th international workshop, ProMAS 2008, Estoril, Portugal. Revised Invited and Selected Papers, pp 88–103Google Scholar
  48. Nikolai C, Madey G (2009) Tools of the trade: a survey of various agent based modeling platforms. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 12:2. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/2/2.html Google Scholar
  49. North MJ, Collier NT, Vos JR (2006) Experiences creating three implementations of the repast agent modeling toolkit. ACM Trans Model Comp Simul (TOMACS) 16(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  51. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  52. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ostrom E, Ahn T (2003) Foundations of social capital. An Elgar reference collection. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 41–82Google Scholar
  55. Paschke A, Bichler M (2008) Knowledge representation concepts for automated SLA management. Decis Support Syst 46(1):187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Perakslis C, Pitt J, Michael K, Michael M (2015) Pervasive technologies: Principles to consider. Intern J Med Implant Devices 5(1):79–93Google Scholar
  57. Petruzzi PE, Busquets D, Pitt JV (2014) Experiments with social capital in multi-agent systems. In: PRIMA 2014: principles and practice of multi-agent systems, pp 18–33Google Scholar
  58. Pitt J, Mamdani A, Charlton P (2001) The open agent society and its enemies: a position statement and research programme. Telemat Inform 18(1):67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pitt J (2005) The open agent society as a platform for the user-friendly information society. AI Soc 19(2):123–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pitt J, Ramirez-Cano D, Draief M, Artikis A (2011) Interleaving multi-agent systems and social networks for organized adaptation. Comput Math Org Theory 17(4):344–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pitt J (2012) Design contractualism for pervasive/affective computing. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31(4):22–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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):39:1–39:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pitt J, Busquets D, Macbeth S (2014) Distributive justice for self-organised common-pool resource management. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 9(3):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pitt J, Busquets D, Riveret R (2013) Procedural justice and ‘fitness for purpose’ of self-organising electronic institutions. In: PRIMA 2013: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8291. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 260–275Google Scholar
  65. Pitt J, Busquets D, Riveret R (2013) The pursuit of computational justice in open systems. AI & SOCIETY 30(3):359–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pitt J, Diaconescu A (2015) Structure and governance of communities for the digital society. In: Workshop on Self-Improving System IntegrationGoogle Scholar
  67. Pitt J, Mamdani A (1999) Some remarks on the semantics of FIPA’s agent communication language. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 2(4):333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Popper K (2002) The open society and its enemies (New Edition; first published 1945). RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  69. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
  70. RCEP (2010) 28th report: adapting institutions to climate change. Royal Commission on Environmental Protection, The Stationery Office Limited, UKGoogle Scholar
  71. Reich R (2015) The sharing economy is hurtling us backwards. Salon. http://www.salon.com/2015/02/04/robert_reich_the_sharing_economy_is_hurtling_us_backwards_partner/
  72. Rescher N (1966) Distributive justice. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  73. Reynolds C, Picard R (2004) Affective sensors, privacy, and ethical contracts. In: Proceedings CHI 2004 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp 1103–1106Google Scholar
  74. Robert SC, Robert III HM, Evans WJ, Honemann DH, Thomas JB (2000) Robert’s rules of order, newly revised, 10th edn. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  75. Searle J (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  76. Serban C, Minsky N (2009) In vivo evolution of policies that govern a distributed system. In: International symposium on policies for distributed systems and networks. IEEE, pp 134–141Google Scholar
  77. Serbedzija N (2012) Reflective computing–naturally artificial. In: Pitt J (ed) This pervasive day, chap 5. IC Press, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  78. Sergot M (2008) Action and agency in norm-governed multi-agent systems. In: Artikis A, O’Hare G, Stathis K, Vouros G (eds) Engineering Societies in the Agents World VIII, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4995. Springer, pp 1–54Google Scholar
  79. Sestini F (2012) Collective awareness platforms: engines for sustainability and ethics. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31(4):54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 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 Special Top 214:109–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sirbu M (1997) Credits and debits on the internet. IEEE Spectr 34(2):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith R (1980) The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans Comput C–29(12):1104–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vasalou A, Hopfensitz A, Pitt J (2008) In praise of forgiveness: ways for repairing trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions. Int J Hum Comput Stud 66(6):466–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vreeswijk G (2000) Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. Artif Intell Law 8(2/3):205–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilensky U (2011) CCL at Northwestern University. Netlogo: a cross-platform multi-agent programmable modeling environment. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.University of PiraeusPiraeusGreece
  3. 3.Institute of Informatics & TelecommunicationsNCSR DemokritosAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations