Deliberative Normative Agents: Principles and Architecture

  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
  • Frank Dignum
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Jan Treur
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1757)


In this paper norms are assumed to be useful in agent societies. It is claimed that not only following norms, but also the possibility of ‘intelligent’ norm violation can be useful. Principles for agents that are able to behave deliberatively on the basis of explicitly represented norms are identified and an architecture is introduced. Using this agent architecture, norms can be communicated, adopted and used as meta-goals on the agent’s own processes. As such they have impact on deliberation about goal generation, goal selection, plan generation and plan selection.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Boella, G., Damiano, R., Lesmo, L.: Cooperating to the group’s utility. In: Jennings, N.R., Lesperance, Y. (eds.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, pp. 319–333. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boman, M.: Norms as Constraints on Real_time Autonomous Agent Action. In: Boman, M., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1237, pp. 36–44. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brainov, S.: The role and the impact of preferences on multi-agent interaction. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, pp. 349–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier, F.M.T., Dunin Keplicz, B., Jennings, N., Treur, J.: DESIRE: Modelling Multi-Agent Systems in a Compositional Formal Framework. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, Special Issue on Formal Methods in Cooperative Information Systems: Multi-Agent Systems (Huhns, M., Singh, M. (eds.)) 6, 67–94 (1997); Preliminary shorter version in: Lesser V. (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS 1995, pp. 25–32. MIT Press, Menlo Park, VS (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brazier, F.M.T., van Eck, P.A.T., Treur, J.: Modelling a Society of Simple Agents: From Conceptual Specification to Experimentation. In: Conte, R., Hegselmann, R., Terna, P. (eds.) Simulating Social Phenomena, Proc. of the International Conference on Computer Simulations and Social Sciences, ICCS&SS 1997. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 456, pp. 103–107. Springer, Berlin (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brazier, F.M.T., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Principles of Compositional Multiagent System Development. In: Cuena, J. (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th IFIP World Computer Congress, WCC 1998, Conference on Information Technology and Knowledge Systems, IT&KNOWS 1998, pp. 347–360 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazier, F.M.T., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Compositional Design and Reuse of a Generic Agent Model. In: Gaines, B., Musen, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the Knowledge Acquisition Workshop, KAW 1999, Banff (1999),
  8. 8.
    Cohen, P., Levesque, H.: Teamwork. Nous 35, 487–512 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Cognitive and Social Action. UCL Press, London (1995a)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Understanding the effects of norms in social groups through simulation. In: Gilbert, G.N., Conte, R. (eds.) Artificial societies: the computer simulation of social life. UCL Press, London (1995b)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: From Conventions to Prescriptions: Toward an integrated Theory of Norms. In: ModelAge 1996 Workshop, Sesimbra (January 1996) (AI&Law, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F.: Autonomous norm acceptance. In: Rao, A.S., Singh, M.P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) ATAL 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1555, pp. 99–112. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conte, R., Falcone, R., Sartor, G.: Agents and norms: How to fill the gap? In: Conte, R., Falcone, R., Sartor, G. (eds.) Agents and Norms, special issue, AI&Law, vol. 7(1), pp. 1–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dignum, F.: Autonomous Agents and Social Norms. In: Falcone, R., Conte, R. (eds.) ICMAS 1996 Workshop on Norms, Obligations and Conventions, Kyoto, pp. 56–71 (1996); Revised version in In AI & Law, vol. 7(1), pp. 69–79 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hilpinen (ed.): Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Reidel, Dordrechtz (1971)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hogg, L., Jennings, N.R.: Variable sociability in agent-based decision making. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, pp. 305–318. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jennings, N.R.: Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 3, 223–250 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jennings, N.R., Campos, J.R.: Towards a Social Level Characterisation of Socially Responsible Agents. IEEE Proc. on Software Engineering 144(1), 11–25 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.J. (eds.): Deontic Logic in Computer Science. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., Chicester (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI architecture. In: Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proc. of the Second Conference on Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenschein, J., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounters. MIT Press, Cambrige (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shoham, Y., Tenneholtz, M.: On the synthesis of useful social laws for artificial agent societies (preliminary report). In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference, pp. 276–281 (1992a)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shoham, Y., Tenneholtz, M.: Emergent conventions in multi-agent systems: Initial experimental results and observations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on KR&R, Cambridge, MA, pp. 225–232 (1992b)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wagner, T., Lesser, V.: Relating quantified motivations for organizationally situated agents. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, pp. 334–348. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Wright, G.: Deontic Logic. Mind 60, 58–74 (1951)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xuan, P., Lesser, V.: Incorporating uncertainty in agent commitments. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1757, pp. 57–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristiano Castelfranchi
    • 1
  • Frank Dignum
    • 2
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 3
  • Jan Treur
    • 3
  1. 1.National Research Council – Institute of Psychology, Division of AICognitive Modelling and Interaction, PSCS – Social Simulation ProjectRomaItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations