Agent-Based Social Simulation with Coalitions in Social Reasoning

  • Nuno David
  • Jaime Simão Sichman
  • Helder Coelho
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1979)

Abstract

There is a growing belief that the agents’ cognitive structures play a central role on the enhancement of predicative capacities of decisionmaking strategies. This paper analyses and simulates the construction of cognitive social structures in the process of decision making with multiple actors. In this process it is argued that the agent’s rational choices may be assessed by its motivations, according to different patterns of social interactions. We first construct an abstract model of social dependence between agents, and define a set of social structures that are easily identifiable according to potential interactions. We then carry out a set of experiments at micro-social levels of analysis, where the agents’ cognitive structures are explicitly represented. These experiments indicate that different social dependence structures imply distinct structural patterns of negotiation proposals, which appear to have diverse patterns of complexity in the search space. It is subsequently shown that this observation emerges as an issue of ambiguity in the regulation of different decision-making criteria, relative to motivation- oriented and utility-oriented choices. In the scope of this ambiguity, we finally make some conjectures relative to further analytical and empirical analysis around the relation between patterns of complexity of social structures and decision-making.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alonso E. (1998), How Agents Negotiate Societies, Proceedings of the 3rd Inter-national Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS’98, IEEE press, pages 18–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antunes L., Faria J. and Coelho H. (2000), Improving Choice Mechanisms within the BVG Architecture, The International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL00), Intelligents Agents VII, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelfranchi C. and Falcone R. (1999), Towards a Theory of Delegation for Agent-Based Systems, Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 24, N.3 and 4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi C., Miceli M. and Cesta A. (1992), Dependence relations among autonomous agents, Proceedings of MAAMAW92, Elsevier Science, pages 215–227.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coleman J. and Fararo T. (1992), Rational Choice Theory-Advocacy and Critique, Sage Publications, Key Issues in Sociological Theory.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conte R. and Castelfranchi C. (1996), Simulating multi-agent interdependencies. A two-way approach to the micro-macro link, Microsimulation and the Social Science, Mueller U. and Troitzsch K. editors, Lecture Notes in Economics, Springer Verlag, pages 394–415.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conte R. and Pedone R. (1998), Finding the best partner: The PART-NET sys-tem, Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation, Proceedings of MABS98, Gilbert N., Sichman J.S. and Conte R. editors, LNAI1534, Springer Verlag, pages 156–168.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    David N., Sichman J.S. and Coelho H. (1999), Extending social reasoning to cope with multiple partner coalitions, Multi-Agent Systems Engineering, Pro-ceedings of MAAMAW99, Garijo F. and Bosman M. editors, LNAI1647, Springer Verlag, pages 175–187.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    David N., Sichman J.S. and Coelho H. (1999), On being responsible: how to be individualistic and smile benevolence to the others, Proceedings of the 3rd Euro-pean Conference on Cognitive Science, ECCS99, 27-30 October, Sienna, Italy, pages 57–62.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    d’Inverno M., Luck M. and Wooldridge M. (1997), Cooperation structures, Pro-ceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI97, pages 600–605.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Epstein J.M. and Axtell R. (1996), Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up, MIT press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FIPA (1997,1998), Specification part 2: Agent Communication Language, http://www.fipa.org.
  13. 13.
    Fischer K. and Muller J.P. (1996), A decision-theoretic model for cooperative transportation scheduling, Agents Breaking Away, Proceedings of MAAMAW96, Eindhoven, LNAI 1038, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilbert N., Sichman J.S. and Conte R. (1998), Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation, Proceedings of MABS98, LNAI 1534, Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hales D. (1998), Stereotyping, Groups and Cultural Evolution: A case of Second Order Emergence?, Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation, Pro-ceedings of MABS98, Gilbert N., Sichman J.S. and Conte R. editors, LNAI1534, Springer Verlag, pages 140–154.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jennings N. (1999), Agent Oriented Software Engineering, Multi-Agent Systems Engineering, Proceedings of MAAMAW99, Garijo F. and Bosman M. editors, LNAI1647, Springer Verlag, pages 1–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jennings N. and Campos J. (1997), Towards a social level characterisation of socially responsible agents, IEE Proceedings of Software Engineering, 144 (1), pages 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marini M.M. (1992), The role of models of purposive action in sociology, Rational Choice Theory-Advocacy and Critique, Coleman J. and Fararo T. editors, Sage Publications, Key Issues in Sociological Theory, pages 21–44.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Newell A. (1982), The Knowledge Level, Artificial Intelligence, (18), pages 87–127.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Prudkov P. and Rodina O. (1999), Synthesis of Purposeful Processes, Target Article at PSYCHOLOQUY-American Psychological Association (APA), ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/Psycoloquy/1999.volume.10/,psycoloquy.99.10.070.purposeful-processes.1.prudkov.
  21. 21.
    Rao A.S. and Georgeff M.P. (1991), Modeling Rational agents within the BDI Architecture, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Russel S. and Norvig P. (1995), Artificial Intelligence, a Modern Approach, Prentice Hall, Chapter 16, pages 473–484.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sichman J.S. (1996), On Achievable Goals and Feasible Plans in Open Multi-Agent Systems, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS96, Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sichman J.S. (1998), DEPINT: Dependence-based coalition formation in an open multi-agent scenario, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1 (2), http://www.soc.survey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/2/3.html
  25. 25.
    Sichman J.S. and Demazeau Y. (1995), Exploiting social reasoning to deal with agency level inconsistency, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS95, AAAI Press, pages 352–359.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sichman J.S., Conte R., Demazeau Y. and Castelfranchi C. (1994), A social rea-soning mechanism based on dependence networks, Proceedings of the European Con-ference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI94, pages 188–192.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simon, H. (1957), A behavioural model of rational choice, Quarterly Journal of Economics, (69), pages 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Terna P. (1998), Simulation Tools for Social Scientists: Building Agent Based Models with SWARM, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(2), http://www.soc.survey.ac.uk/JASSS/1/2/4.html
  29. 29.
    Zlotkin G. and Rosenchein J. (1994), Coalition, cryptograpphy and stability: Mechanisms for coalition formation in task oriented domains, Proceedings of the American National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI94, Seattle, WA, USA, pages 432–437.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nuno David
    • 1
  • Jaime Simão Sichman
    • 2
  • Helder Coelho
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information Science and TechnologyISCTE/DCTILisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Intelligent Techniques LaboratoryUniversity of São PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsUniversity of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations