Specifying and Analysing Agent-Based Social Institutions Using Answer Set Programming

  • Owen Cliffe
  • Marina De Vos
  • Julian Padget
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3913)


In this paper we discuss the use of the Answer Set Programming paradigm for representing and analysing specifications of agent-based institutions. We outline the features of institutions we model, and describe how they are translated into ASP programs which can then be used to verify properties of the specifications. We demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach through the institutions of property and exchange.


Multiagent System Institutional Fact Classical Negation Institutional Action Planning Query 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Artikis, A.: Executable Specification of Open Norm-Governed Computational Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London (September 2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: An executable specification of an argumentation protocol. In: Proceedings of conference on artificial intelligence and law (icail), pp. 1–11. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J., Pitt, J.: Specifying Electronic Societies with the Causal Calculator. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J.J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombetti, M., Fornara, N., Verdicchio, M.: The role of institutions in multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Knowledge based and reasoning agents, VIII Convegno AI*IA 2002, Siena, Italy (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colombetti, M., Verdicchio, M.: An analysis of agent speech acts as institutional actions. In: The First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2002), pp. 1157–1164. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Vos, M., Vermeir, D.: Extending Answer Sets for Logic Programming Agents. Annals of Mathematics and Artifical Intelligence, Special Issue on Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems 42(1–3), 103–139 (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denecker, M.: What’s in a Model? Epistemological Analysis of Logic Programming. Ceur-WS (September 2003), online
  9. 9.
    Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J., Dignum, F., Weigand, H.: Formal Specification of Interaction in Agent Societies. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A., Gordon-Spears, D.F. (eds.) FAABS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2699, pp. 37–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    North, D.C.: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eiter, T., Leone, N., Mateis, C., Pfeifer, G., Scarcello, F.: The KR system dlv: Progress report, comparisons and benchmarks. In: Cohn, A.G., Schubert, L., Shapiro, S.C. (eds.) KR 1998: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 406–417. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giunchiglia, E., Lee, J., Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Turner, H.: Nonmonotonic causal theories. Artificial Intelligence 153, 49–104 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: Operational specification of a commitment-based agent communication language. In: AAMAS 2002: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 536–542. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dignum, F.P.M., Broersen, J., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.: Meeting the deadline: Why, when and how. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3228, pp. 30–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: Proc. of fifth logic programming symposium, pp. 1070–1080. MIT Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing 9(3-4), 365–386 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guerin, F., Pitt, J.: Denotational semantics for agent communication language. In: AGENTS 2001: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents, pp. 497–504. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.P.M.: Implementing Norms in Multiagent Systems. In: Lindemann, G., Denzinger, J., Timm, I.J., Unland, R. (eds.) MATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3187, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. The Penguin Press, Allen Lane (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power. ACM Computing Surveys 28(4es), 121 (1996) (Read 28/11/2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kamara, L., Artikis, A., Neville, B., Pitt, J.: Simulating computational societies. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2577, pp. 53–67. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gen. Comput. 4(1), 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Niemelä, I., Simons, P.: Smodels: An implementation of the stable model and well-founded semantics for normal LP. In: Fuhrbach, U., Dix, J., Nerode, A. (eds.) LPNMR 1997. LNCS, vol. 1265, pp. 420–429. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sergot, M.: (C + ) + + : An action language for representing norms and institutions. Technical report, Imperial College, London (August 2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Singh, M.P.: A social semantics for agent communication languages. In: Dignum, F.P.M., Greaves, M. (eds.) Issues in Agent Communication. LNCS, vol. 1916, pp. 31–45. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: A logical model of social commitment for agent communication. In: AAMAS 2003: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 528–535. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen Cliffe
    • 1
  • Marina De Vos
    • 1
  • Julian Padget
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of BathBathUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations