Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The open agent society: retrospective and prospective views

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Pronounced \(\alpha \beta \): the acronym stood for “A Logical Framework for Ethical Behaviour between Infohabitants in the Information Trading Economy of the Universal Information Ecosystem”. No-one ever asked twice.

  2. FIPA: the Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, see http://www.fipa.org; ACL Agent Communication Language, see http://www.fipa.org/repository/aclspecs.html.

References

  • Alchourrón C, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Logic 50(2):510–530

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Allen C, Wallach W, Smit I (2006) Why machine ethics. IEEE Intell Syst 21(4):12–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artikis A (2012) Dynamic specification of open agent systems. J Logic Comput 22(6):1301–1334

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Artikis A, Sergot M, Paliouras G (2015) An event calculus for event recognition. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 27(4):895–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Artikis A, Sergot M (2010) Executable specification of open multi-agent systems. Logic J IGPL 18(1):31–65

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Austin J (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 169–176

  • 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 151–166

  • Brewka G (2001) Dynamic argument systems: a formal model of argumentation processes based on situation calculus. J Logic Comput 11(2):257–282

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–17

  • Bryant V (1985) Metric spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Carr H, Artikis A, Pitt J (2009) Presage-ms: metric spaces in presage. In: ESAW, pp 243–246

  • Cavoukian A (2012) Privacy by design [leading edge]. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31(4):18–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesani F, Mello P, Montali M, Torroni P (2010) A logic-based, reactive calculus of events. Fundam Inform 105(1–2):135–161

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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):85–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daassi M, Favier M (2007) Developing a measure of collective awareness in virtual teams. Int J Bus Inf Syst 2(4):413–425

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–17

  • 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 305–316

  • Forgy C (1982) Rete: a fast algorithm for the many pattern/many object pattern match problem. Artif Intell 19(3597):17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21–30

  • Giunchiglia E, Lee J, Lifschitz V, McCain N, Turner H (2004) Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artif Intell 153(1–2):49–104

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Goulev P, Stead L, Mamdani A, Evans C (2004) Computer aided emotional fashion. Comput Graph 28(5):657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31–40

  • 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 13–22

  • 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 3–18

  • 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 112–127

  • 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). ACM

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess C, Ostrom E (2006) Understanding knowledge as a commons. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt C (1986) Offices are open systems. ACM Trans Inf Syst 4(3):271–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A (2002) On the concept of trust. Decis Support Syst 33(3):225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones AJ, Artikis A, Pitt J (2013) The design of intelligent socio-technical systems. Artif Intell Rev 39(1):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones AJI, Kimbrough SO (2008) The normative aspect of signalling and the distinction between performative and constative. J Appl Logic 6(2):218–228

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. J IGPL 4(3):427–443

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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 CSCW

  • Kowalski R, Sergot M (1986) A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener Comput 4:67–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamport L (1998) The part-time parliament. ACM Trans Comput Syst 16(2):133–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (2006) Code: and other laws of cyberspace, Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York City, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 682–688

  • Loui R (1992) Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative argument. In: Technical report. Washington University, Department of Computer Science

  • Luke S, Cioffi-Revilla C, Panait L, Sullivan K (2004) MASON: a new multi-agent simulation toolkit. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Swarmfest Workshop

  • 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 

  • Macbeth S, Pitt J (2014) Self-organising management of user-generated data and knowledge. Knowl Eng Rev 30(3):237–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makinson D, van der Torre L (2000) Input–output logics. J Philos Logic 29:383–408

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK

  • 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, UK

  • 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 88–103

  • 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 

  • 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):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Ahn T (2003) Foundations of social capital. An Elgar reference collection. Edward Elgar Pub, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 41–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Paschke A, Bichler M (2008) Knowledge representation concepts for automated SLA management. Decis Support Syst 46(1):187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perakslis C, Pitt J, Michael K, Michael M (2015) Pervasive technologies: Principles to consider. Intern J Med Implant Devices 5(1):79–93

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 18–33

  • Pitt J, Mamdani A, Charlton P (2001) The open agent society and its enemies: a position statement and research programme. Telemat Inform 18(1):67–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt J (2005) The open agent society as a platform for the user-friendly information society. AI Soc 19(2):123–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):344–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt J (2012) Design contractualism for pervasive/affective computing. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31(4):22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):39:1–39:39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt J, Busquets D, Macbeth S (2014) Distributive justice for self-organised common-pool resource management. ACM Trans Auton Adapt Syst 9(3):14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 260–275

  • Pitt J, Busquets D, Riveret R (2013) The pursuit of computational justice in open systems. AI & SOCIETY 30(3):359–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt J, Diaconescu A (2015) Structure and governance of communities for the digital society. In: Workshop on Self-Improving System Integration

  • Pitt J, Mamdani A (1999) Some remarks on the semantics of FIPA’s agent communication language. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 2(4):333–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K (2002) The open society and its enemies (New Edition; first published 1945). Routledge

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Harvard, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • RCEP (2010) 28th report: adapting institutions to climate change. Royal Commission on Environmental Protection, The Stationery Office Limited, UK

  • 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/

  • Rescher N (1966) Distributive justice. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds C, Picard R (2004) Affective sensors, privacy, and ethical contracts. In: Proceedings CHI 2004 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, pp 1103–1106

  • Robert SC, Robert III HM, Evans WJ, Honemann DH, Thomas JB (2000) Robert’s rules of order, newly revised, 10th edn. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

  • 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 134–141

  • Serbedzija N (2012) Reflective computing–naturally artificial. In: Pitt J (ed) This pervasive day, chap 5. IC Press, London, UK

  • 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 1–54

  • Sestini F (2012) Collective awareness platforms: engines for sustainability and ethics. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 31(4):54–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 214:109–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirbu M (1997) Credits and debits on the internet. IEEE Spectr 34(2):23–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (1980) The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans Comput C–29(12):1104–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):466–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vreeswijk G (2000) Representation of formal dispute with a standing order. Artif Intell Law 8(2/3):205–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky U (2011) CCL at Northwestern University. Netlogo: a cross-platform multi-agent programmable modeling environment. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2BT, UK

    Jeremy Pitt

  2. University of Piraeus, 18534, Piraeus, Greece

    Alexander Artikis

  3. Institute of Informatics & Telecommunications, NCSR Demokritos, 15310, Athens, Greece

    Alexander Artikis

Authors
  1. Jeremy Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Artikis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Pitt.

Additional information

In Honour of Jon Bing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pitt, J., Artikis, A. The open agent society: retrospective and prospective views. Artif Intell Law 23, 241–270 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9173-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-015-9173-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation