Normative KGP agents

Article

Abstract

We extend the logical model of agency known as the KGP model, to support agents with normative concepts, based on the roles an agent plays and the obligations and prohibitions that result from playing these roles. The proposed framework illustrates how the resulting normative concepts, including the roles, can evolve dynamically during the lifetime of the agent. Furthermore, we illustrate how these concepts can be combined with the existing capabilities of KGP agents in order to plan for their goals, react to changes in the environment, and interact with other agents. Our approach gives an executable specification of normative concepts that can be used directly for prototyping applications.

Keywords

Computational logic Normative agents Abduction Priorities Planning Roles Obligations Prohibitions 

References

  1. Alberti M, Chesani F, Gavanelli M, Lamma E, Mello P, Torroni P (2004) Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based tool. In: Robert Trappl (ed) Proceedings of the 17th European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vol. II, Symposium “From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation” (AT2AI-4), Vienna, Austria, Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, pp 570–575Google Scholar
  2. Arisha KA, Ozcan F, Ross R, Subrahmanian VS, Eiter T, Kraus S (1999) IMPACT: a Platform for collaborating agents. IEEE Intell Syst 14(2):64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Artikis A, Pitt J (2001) A formal model of open agent societies. In: Müller J, Andre E, Sen S, Frasson C (eds) Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents (AA), ACM Press, pp 192–193Google Scholar
  4. Artikis A, Pitt J, Sergot M (2002) Animated specifications of computational societies. In: Castelfranchi C, Johnson L (eds) Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), ACM Press, pp 1053–1062Google Scholar
  5. Bracciali A, Demetriou N, Endriss U, Kakas A, Lu W, Mancarella P, Sadri F, Stathis K, Terreni G, Toni F (2005) The KGP Model for Global Computing: Computational Model and Prototype implementation. In Global Computing, LNCS. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewka G (1994) Reasoning with priorities in default logic. In: Proceedings of AAAI-94, pp 940–945Google Scholar
  7. Broersen J, Dastani M, Hulstijn J, Huang Z, van der Torre L (2001) The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: Müller, Jörg P. Andre, E. Sen, S. Frasson, C (eds) Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Montreal, Canada. ACM Press, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  8. Carabelea C, Boissier O, Castelfranchi C (2004) Using social power to enable agents to reason about being part of a group. In: Pre-proceedings of ESAW#04, ToulouseGoogle Scholar
  9. Castelfranchi C, Dignum F, Jonker CM, Treur J (1999) Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture. In: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, pp 364–378Google Scholar
  10. Dastani M, van der Torre L (2004) Programming boid agents: a deliberation language for conflicts between mental attitudes and plans. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS#04)Google Scholar
  11. Demetriou N, Kakas AC, Torroni P (2004) Agent planning, negotiation and control of operation. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI04)Google Scholar
  12. Dignum F (1999) Autonomous agents with norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. d’Inverno M, Luck M (2003) Understanding agent systems, 2nd ed. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  14. Huhns MN, Singh MP (eds) (1998) Readings in agents. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaffar J, Maher MJ (1994) Constraint logic programming: a survey. J Logic Programm, 19-20:503–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones AJI, Sergot MJ (1993) On the characterisation of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification. John Wiley and Sons, Chicester pp 275–307Google Scholar
  17. Jones AJI, Sergot MJ (1996) A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. J IGPL pp 4(3):429–445Google Scholar
  18. Kakas A, Mancarella P, Sadri F, Stathis K, Toni F (2004) Declarative agent control. In: Leite J, Torroni P (eds) Proceedings CLIMA#04, 5th International Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  19. Kakas A, Mancarella P, Sadri F, Stathis K, Toni F (2004) The KGP model of agency. In: European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI04), pp 33–39Google Scholar
  20. Kakas AC, Kowalski RA, Toni F (1998) The role of abduction in logic programming. In Gabbay DM Hogger CJ, Robinson JA (eds) Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, Oxford University Press, vol.5, pp 235–324Google Scholar
  21. Kakas AC, Moraitis P (2003) Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In: Rosenschein JS, Sandholm T, Wooldridge M, Yokoo M (eds) AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, ACM, pp 883–890Google Scholar
  22. Kowalski RA, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener Comput 4(1):67–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kowalski RA, Toni F (1996) Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intell and Law Journal, Special Issue on Logical Models of Argumentation 4:275–296Google Scholar
  24. Lopez y Lopez F, Luck M (2002) Towards a model of the dynamics of normative multi-agent systems. In: International workshop on Regulated Agent Based Social Systems: theories and applications (RASTA #02), pp 175–193Google Scholar
  25. Lopez y Lopez F, Luck M (2004) A model of normative multi-agent systems and dynamic relationships. In Paolucci M, Lindemann G, Moldt D (eds) Regulated agent-based social systems, Lecture notes in AI, 2934, Springer, pp 259–280Google Scholar
  26. Lopez y Lopez F, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2002) Constraining autonomy through norms. In: Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS#01), pp 674–681Google Scholar
  27. Lopez y Lopez F, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2004) Normative agent reasoning in dynamic societies. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS#04), New York, pp 259–280Google Scholar
  28. Julian A. Padget (ed) (2001) Collaboration between human and Artificial Societies: Coordination and Agent-based Distributed Computing. Springer, LNAI 1624Google Scholar
  29. Prakken H, Sartor G (1996) A system for defeasible argumentation, with defeasible priorities. In: Proceeding International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, vol. 1085 of LNAI, Springer, Verlag pp 510–524.Google Scholar
  30. Prakken H and Sartor G (1997) Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. J Appl Non-Classical Log, 7(1)Google Scholar
  31. Rao AS, Georgeff MP (1995) BDI-agents: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the First Intl. Conference on Multiagent Systems, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. Sadri F, Toni F (2005) Profiles of behaviour for logic-based agents. In: Proceedings of CLIMA VIGoogle Scholar
  33. Stathis K, Kakas A, Lu W, Demetriou N, Endriss U, Bracciali A (2004) PROSOCS: a platform for programming software agents in computational logic. In: Müller J, Petta P (eds) Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium “From Agent Theory to Agent Implementation”, Vienna, Austria, April 13–16Google Scholar
  34. Toni F, Stathis K (2002) Access-as-you-need: a computational logic framework for flexible resource access in artificial societies. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents World (ESAW#02), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ComputingImperial College LondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonUK

Personalised recommendations