Advertisement

Supporting flexible regulation of crisis management by means of situated artificial institution

  • Maiquel De BritoEmail author
  • Lauren Thévin
  • Catherine Garbay
  • Olivier Boissier
  • Jomi Fred Hübner
Article

Abstract

This paper highlights the use of situated artificial institution (SAI) within a hybrid, interactive, normative multi-agent system to regulate human collaboration in crisis management. Norms regulate the actions of human actors based on the dynamics of the environment in which they are situated. This dynamics results from both environment evolution and actors’ actions. Our objective is to situate norms in the environment in order to provide a context-aware crisis regulation. However, this coupling must be a loose one to keep both levels independent and easyto-change in order to face the complex and changing crisis situations. To that aim, we introduce a constitutive level between environmental and normative states providing a loose coupling of normative regulation with environment evolution. Norms are thus no more referring to environmental facts but to status functions, i.e., the institutional interpretation of environmental facts through constitutive rules. We present how this declarative and distinct SAI modelling succeeds in managing the crisis with a context-aware crisis regulation.

Keywords

Situated artificial institutions (SAIs) Normative system Tangible interaction Crisis management 

CLC number

TP18 C912.2 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldewereld, H., Álvarez-Napagao, S., Dignum, F., et al., 2010. Making norms concrete. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.807–814.Google Scholar
  2. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Verhagen, H., 2008. Introduction to the special issue on normative multiagent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 17(1):1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9047-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campos, J., López-Sánchez, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., et al., 2009. Formalising situatedness and adaptation in electronic institutions. Int. Workshops on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, p.126–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00443-8_9Google Scholar
  4. Cardoso, H.L., Oliveira, E., 2007. Institutional reality and norms: specifying and monitoring agent organizations. Int. J. Cooper. Inform. Syst., 16(1):67–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218843007001573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cliffe, O., de Vos, M., Padget, J., 2007. Answer set programming for representing and reasoning about virtual institutions. 7th Int. Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, p.60–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69619-3_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. da Silva dos Santos, I.A., da Rocha Costa, A.C., 2009. Toward a framework for simulating agent-based models of public policy processes on the Jason-CArtAgo platform. Proc. 2nd Int. Workshop on Agent-Based Modeling for Policy Engineering, p.45–59.Google Scholar
  7. Dastani, M., van der Torre, L., Yorke-Smith, N., 2013. Monitoring interaction in organisations. Int. Workshops on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems, p.17–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37756-3_2Google Scholar
  8. de Brito, M., Hübner, J.F., Bordini, R.H., 2013. Programming institutional facts in multi-agent systems. 14th Int. Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms, p.158–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37756-3_10Google Scholar
  9. de Brito, M., Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O., 2014. A conceptual model for situated artificial institutions. 15th Int. Workshop on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, p.35–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09764-0_3Google Scholar
  10. de Brito, M., Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O., 2015a. Bringing constitutive dynamics to situated artificial institutions. 17th Portuguese Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, p.624–637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23485-4_63Google Scholar
  11. de Brito, M., Thévin, L., Garbay, C., et al., 2015b. Situated artificial institution to support advanced regulation in the field of crisis management. 13th Int. Conf. on Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, p.66–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18944-4_6Google Scholar
  12. de Brito, M., Hübner, J.F., Boissier, O., 2016. Coupling regulative and constitutive dimensions in situated artificial institutions. 13th European Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems & 3rd Int. Conf. on Agreement Technologies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33509-4_25Google Scholar
  13. Dugdale, J., Bellamine-Ben Saoud, N., Pavard, B., et al., 2010. Simulation and emergency management. In: van de Walle, B., Turoff, M., Hiltz, S.R. (Eds.), Information Systems for Emergency Management. Part IV. Systems Design and Technology, Chapter 10.Google Scholar
  14. Ferraris, C., Martel, C., 2000. Regulation in groupware: the example of a collaborative drawing tool for young children. 6th Int. Workshop on Groupware, p.119–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CRIWG.2000.885163Google Scholar
  15. Fornara, N., Viganò, F., Verdicchio, M., et al., 2008. Artificial institutions: a model of institutional reality for open multiagent systems. Artif. Intell. Law, 16(1):89–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10506-007-9055-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franke, J., Charoy, F., 2010. Design of a collaborative disaster response process management system. 9th Int. Conf. on the Design of Cooperative Systems, p.57–77.Google Scholar
  17. Garbay, C., Badeig, F., Caelen, J., 2012. Normative multiagent approach to support collaborative work in distributed tangible environments, Proc. ACM Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Companion, p.83–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2141512.2141548Google Scholar
  18. Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Vázquez-Salceda, J., et al., 2006. Ontological aspects of the implementation of norms in agent-based electronic institutions. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory, 12(2):251–275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9546-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M., 1996. A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic J. IGPL, 4(3):427–443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/4.3.427MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kubicki, S., Lepreux, S., Kolski, C., 2012. RFID-driven situation awareness on Tangisense, a table interacting with tangible objects. Pers. Ubiq. Comput., 16(8):1079–1094. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-011-0442-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oh, J., Meneguzzi, F., Sycara, K.P., et al., 2011. An agent architecture for prognostic reasoning assistance. Proc. 22nd Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, p.2513–2518. http://dx.doi.org/10.5591/978-1-57735-516-8/IJCAI11-418Google Scholar
  22. Okuyama, F.Y., Bordini, R.H., da Rocha Costa, A.C., 2013. Situated normative infrastructures: the normative object approach. J. Log. Comput., 23(2):397–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exr029MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oomes, A.H.J., 2004. Organization awareness in crisis management—dynamic organigrams for more effective disaster response. Int. Conf. on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, p.63–68.Google Scholar
  24. Panagiotidi, S., Álvarez-Napagao, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J., 2013. Towards the norm-aware agent: bridging the gap between deontic specifications and practical mechanisms for norm monitoring and norm-aware planning. Int. Workshops on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, p.346–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_19Google Scholar
  25. Pipek, V., Liu, S.B., Kerne, A., 2014. Crisis informatics and collaboration: a brief introduction. Comput. Supported Cooper. Work, 23(4):339–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10606-014-9211-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Piunti, M., Boissier, O., Hübner, J.F., et al., 2010. Embodied organizations: a unifying perspective in programming agents, organizations and environments. Proc. Multi-Agent Logics, Languages, and Organisations Federated Workshops, p.98–114.Google Scholar
  27. Ricci, A., Piunti, M., Viroli, M., 2011. Environment programming in multi-agent systems: an artifact-based perspective. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 23(2):158–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9140-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Russell, S., Norvig, P., 2003. Artificial Intelligence: a Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Searle, J., 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  30. Searle, J., 2009. Making the Social World: the Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Shaer, O., Hornecker, E., 2010. Tangible user interfaces: past, present, and future directions. Found. Trends Human-Comput. Interact., 3(1-2):1–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000026Google Scholar
  32. Thévin, L., Badeig, F., Dugdale, J., et al., 2014. Un système multi-agent normatif pour la collaboration et l’interaction mixte. In: Courdier, R., Jamont, J.P. (Eds.), Principe de Parcimonie - JFSMA 14 - Vingtdeuxièmes Journées Francophones sur les Systèmes Multi-Agents, Loriol-sur-Drôme, p.203–212 (in French).Google Scholar
  33. Vázquez-Salceda, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F., 2004. Implementing norms in multiagent systems. 2nd German Conf. on Multiagent System Technologies, p.313–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30082-3_23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Viganò, F., Colombetti, M., 2007. Specification and verification of institutions through status functions. Int. Workshops on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, p.115–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74459-7_8Google Scholar
  35. Viganò, F., Colombetti, M., 2008. Model checking norms and sanctions in institutions. Int. Workshops on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems, p.316–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79003-7_23Google Scholar
  36. Weyns, D., Omicini, A., Odell, J., 2007. Environment as a first-class abstraction in multiagent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., 14(1):5–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-006-0012-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. y López, F.L., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M., 2006. A normative framework for agent-based systems. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory, 12(2-3):227–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9545-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang, S.C., Gu, N., Yang, J.M., 2006. A norm-driven state machine model for CSCW systems. Expert Syst. Appl., 31(4):800–807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2006.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Zhejiang University Science Editorial Office and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maiquel De Brito
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lauren Thévin
    • 2
  • Catherine Garbay
    • 2
  • Olivier Boissier
    • 3
  • Jomi Fred Hübner
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of Santa Catarina, UFSC/CTC/DAS/PPGEASFlorianópolisBrazil
  2. 2.LIG/Université de GrenobleGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire Hubert Curien UMR CNRS 5516, Institut Henri Fayol, MINES Saint-EtienneSaint-EtienneFrance

Personalised recommendations