Self-regulation through social institutions: A framework for the design of open agent-based electronic marketplaces

Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that allowing self-interested agents to activate social institutions during runtime can improve the robustness (i.e., stability, reliability, or scalability) of open multiagent systems (MAS). Referring to sociological theory, we consider institutions to be rules that need to be activated and adopted by the agent population during runtime and propose a framework for self-regulation of MAS for the domain of electronic marketplaces. The framework consists of three different institutional types that are defined by the mechanisms and instances that generate, change or safeguard them. We suggest that allowing autonomous agents both the reasoning about their compliance with a rule and the selection of an adequate institutional types helps to balance the trade-off between the autonomy of self-interested agents and the maintenance of social order (cf. Castelfranchi, 2000) in MAS, and to ensure almost the same qualities as in closed environments. A preliminary report of the evaluation of the prototype by empirical simulations is given.

Keywords

Institutions Self-regulation BDI Electronic market Multiagent systems 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axtell R (2001) Effects of interaction topology and activation regime in several multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Multi-Agent Based Simulations, Boston, MA USA, July 2000, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1979), Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 33–48Google Scholar
  2. Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Boella G, Damiano R (2002) A game-theoretic model of third-party agents for enforcing obligations in transactions. In: Sartor G, Cevenini C (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on the Law of Electronic Agents (LEA02)Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu P (1990) In other words. Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. University Press, Polity Press, Stanford, Cal., Cambridge/UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu P (1998) The forms of capital. In: Halsey AH, Lauder H, Brown P, Stuart Wells A (eds) Education. Culture, Economy, and Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, pp 46–58Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu P (2000) Pascalian meditations. Stanford University Press, Stanford/CaGoogle Scholar
  7. Bratman M (1987) Intentions, plans and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 Autonomous Agents 2001, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  9. Castelfranchi C (1999) Prescribed mental attitudes in goal-adoption and norm-adoption. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castelfranchi C (2000) Engineering Social Order. In: Omnici A, Tolksdorf R, Zambonelli F (eds) Proceedings of the First International Workshop (ESAW’00) on Engineering Societies in the Agents World, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1972, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg: pp 1–18Google Scholar
  11. Colombetti M, Fornara N, Verdicchio M (2002) The role of institutions in multiagent systems. Atti del VII convegno dell Associazione italiana per l intelligenza artificiale (AI*IA 02), SienaGoogle Scholar
  12. Conte R, Castelfranchi C (2001) Are incentives good enough to achieve (info)social order. In: Dellarocas C, Conte R (eds) Proceedings of the Workshop on Norms and Institutions in MAS (at AGENTS2000), Barcelona, Spain, 2000Google Scholar
  13. Dellarocas C (2001) Negotiated shared context and social control in open multiagent systems. Social Order in Multiagent Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Dignum F (2001) Agents, markets, institutions and protocols. In: Dignum F, Sierra C (eds) The European AgentLink Perspective, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1991), Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 98–114Google Scholar
  15. Dignum F (1999) Autonomous agents with norms. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dignum F (2004) Abstract norms and electronic institutions. In: Lindemann G, Moldt D, Paolucci M, Yu B (eds) Proceedings of Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2934), Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 93–103Google Scholar
  17. DiMaggio P (1997) Culture and cognition. Annual Review of Sociology 23:263–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Esser H (2000) Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen, Bd. 5: Institutionen, Campus, Frankfurt a.MGoogle Scholar
  19. Esteva M, Rodriguez JA, Sierra C, Garcia P, Arcos JL (2001) Agent-mediated electronic commerce. In: Dignum F, Sierra C (eds) The European AgentLink Perspective, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1991), Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 126–147Google Scholar
  20. Froomkin AM (1997) The essential role of trusted third parties in electronic commerce, 75 Oregon L. Rev. 49.Google Scholar
  21. Hahn C, Fley B, Florian M (2005) Social reputation: A mechanism for flexible self-regulation of multiagent systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation (under review)Google Scholar
  22. Kollingbaum MJ, Norman TJ (2003) Norm consistency in practical reasoning agents. In: Dastany M, Dix J (eds) PROMAS Workshop on Programming Multiagent SystemsGoogle Scholar
  23. Lopez y, Lopez F, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2002) Constraining autonomy through norms. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp 647–681Google Scholar
  24. Lopez y, Lopez F, Luck M, d’Inverno M (2004) Normative agent reasoning in dynamic societies. In: Jennings NR, Sierra C, Sonenberg L, Tambe M (eds) Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), New York, USA, 2004. ACM Press, 535–542Google Scholar
  25. Verhagen H (2000) Norm autonomous agents, PhD thesis, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  26. Schillo M, Bürckert H-J, Fischer K, Klusch M (2001) Towards a definition of robustness for market-style open multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents pp 75–76Google Scholar
  27. Schillo M, Fischer K, Fley B, Florian M, Hillebrandt F, Spresny D (2004a) FORM–-A sociologically founded framework for designing self-organization of multiagent systems. In: Lindemann G, Moldt D, Paolucci M, Yu B (eds) Regulated Agent- Based Social Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2934), Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 156–175Google Scholar
  28. Schillo M, Fischer K, Hillebrandt F, Florian M, Dederichs A (2000) Bounded social rationality: Modelling self-organization and adaption using habitus-field theory. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Modelling Artificial Societies and Hybrid Organisations (MASHO), pp 112–122Google Scholar
  29. Schillo M, Knabe T, Fischer K (2004b) Autonomy comes at a price: Performance and robustness of multiagent organizations. In: Hillebrandt F, Florian M (eds) Adaption und Lernen in und von Organisationen, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 127–140Google Scholar
  30. Scott RW (2001) Institutions and Organizations, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  31. Tennenholtz M (1989) On stable social laws and qualitative equilibria. Artificial Intelligence 120(1):1–20Google Scholar
  32. Wooldridge M, Jennings N, Kinny D (1999) A methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents, AA99, ACM Press, New York, pp 69–76Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Deduction and Multiagent SystemsGerman Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)SaarbrückenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Technology AssessmentHamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations