Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 69–79

Autonomous agents with norms

  • Frank Dignum
Article

Abstract

In this paper we present some concepts and their relations that are necessary for modeling autonomous agents in an environment that is governed by some (social) norms. We divide the norms over three levels: the private level the contract level and the convention level. We show how deontic logic can be used to model the concepts and how the theory of speech acts can be used to model the generation of (some of) the norms. Finally we give some idea about an agent architecture incorporating the social norms based on a BDI framework.

agent society norms contracts speech acts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    N. Asher & D. Bonevac 1996. Prima facie obligation, Studia Logica 57(1), 19-45.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Boutilier 1994. Toward a logic for qualitative decision theory, in Jon Doyle et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, San Francisco (CA): Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 75-86.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Cohen & H. Levesque 1991. Teamwork Nous 35, 487-512.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conte, R. & C. Castelfranchi 1995. Cognitive and Social Action. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F. Dignum & R. Conte 1997. Intentional agents and goal formation, in M. Singh et al. (eds.), ATAL-97, Providence, USA, pp. 219-231.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Dignum & B. van Linder 1997. Modelling social agents: Communication as actions, in M. Wooldridge J. Muller & N. Jennings (eds.), Intelligent Agents III (LNAI-1193), Springer-Verlag, pp. 205-218.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Dignum, J.-J.Ch. Meyer, & R. Wieringa 1994. A dynamic logic for reasoning about sub-ideal states, in J. Breuker (ed.), ECAI Workshop on Artificial Normative Reasoning, Amsterdam, pp. 79-92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Dignum & H. Weigand 1995. Modeling communication between cooperative systems, in J. Iivari, K. Lyytinen & M. Rossi (eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering, Berlin: Springer, pp. 140-153.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Herrestad & C. Krogh 1995. Deontic logic relativised to bearers and counterparties, in J. Bing & O. Torrund (eds.), Anniversary Anthology in Computers and Law, Tano A.S., pp. 453-522.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    N. Jennings 1993. Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multiagent systems, Knowledge Engineering Review 8(3), 223-250.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Jennings & J. Campos 1997. Towards a social level characterisation of socially responsible agents, IEEE Proceedings on Software Engineering 144(1), 11-25.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Jones & I. Pörn 1985. Ideality, sub-ideality and deontic logic, Synthese 65, 275-290.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Kinny & M. Georgeff 1991. Commitment and effectiveness of situated agents, In Proceedings IJCA Intelligence, Sydney: Australia, pp. 82-88.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. van Linder, W. van der Hoek & J.-J.Ch. Meyer 1996. How to motivate your agents. On making promises that you can keep, in Wooldridge, Müller & Tambe (eds.), Intelligent Agents II, LNCS 1037, pp. 17-32.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Muller 1996. A cooperation model for autonomous agents, In J. P. Müller, M. J. Wooldridge, & N. R. Jennings (eds.), Intelligent Agents III — Proceedings of (ATAL-96), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. J. Norman, N. R. Jennings, P. Faratin, & E. H. Mamdani 1996. Designing and implementing a multi-agent architecture for business process management, in J. P. Müller, M. J. Wooldridge, & N. R. Jennings (eds.), Intelligent Agents III — Proceedings of (ATAL-96), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. Prakken & M. Sergot 1996. Contrary-to-duty obligations, Studia Logica 57(1), 91-115.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.S. Rao & M.P. Georgeff 1991. Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture, in J. Allen, R. Fikes & E. Sandewall (eds.), Proceedings 2nd Int. Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, San Mateo (CA): Morgan Kaufmann, 473-484.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. Verharen, F. Dignum, & H. Weigand 1996. A language/action perspective on cooperative information agents, in E. Verharen, N. van der Rijst & J. Dietz (eds.), Proceedings International Workshop on Communication Modeling (LAP-96), Oisterwijk: The Netherlands, pp. 40-53.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Weigand, E. Verharen, & F. Dignum 1996. Interoperable transactions in business models: A structured approach, in P. Constantopoulos, J. Mylopoulos & Y. Vassiliou (eds.), Advanced Information Systems Engineering (LNCS 1080), Springer, pp. 193-209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Dignum
    • 1
  1. 1.Fac. of Maths. & Comp. Sc.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations