Plan Analysis for Autonomous Sociological Agents

  • Michael Luck
  • Mark d’Inverno
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1986)


This paper is concerned with the problem of how effective social interaction arises from individual social action and mind. The need to study the individual social mind suggests a move towards the notion of sociological agents who can model their social environment as opposed to acting socially within it. This does not constrain social behaviour; on the contrary, we argue that it provides the requisite information and understanding for such behaviour to be effective. Indeed, it is not enough for agents to model other agents in isolation; they must also model the relationships between them. A sociological agent is thus an agent that can model agents and agent relationships. Several existing models use notions of autonomy and dependence to show how this kind of interaction comes about, but the level of analysis is limited. In this paper, we show how an existing agent framework leads naturally to the enumeration of a map of inter-agent relationships that can be modelled and exploited by sociological agents to enable more effective operation, especially in the context of multi-agent plans.


Autonomous Agent Agent Relationship Primitive Action Direct Engagement Agent Framework 
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.
    L. Antunes, J. Faria, and H. Coelho. Improving choice mechanisms within the BVG architecture. In IntelligentAgents VII.Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages-7th International Workshop, ATAL-2000, Proceedings. LNAI, Springer-Verlag, 2001. In this volume.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Castelfranchi. Social power. In Y. Demazeau and J.-P. Müller, editors, Decentralized AI — Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, pages 49–62. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Castelfranchi and R. Conte. Distributed artificial intelligence and social science: Critical issues. In G. M. P. O’Hare and N. R. Jennings, editors, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 527–542.Wiley, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Castelfranchi, M. Miceli, and A. Cesta. Dependence relations among autonomous agents. In E. Werner and Y. Demazeau, editors, Decentralized AI 3: Proceedings of the Third European Workshop on ModellingAutonomous Agents in a Multi-AgentWorld, pages 215–231. Elsevier, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. d’Inverno, D. Kinny, M. Luck, and M. Wooldridge. A formal specification of dMARS. In Intelligent Agents IV: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, volume 1365, pages 155–176. Springer-Verlag, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. d’Inverno and M. Luck. Development and application of a formal agent framework. In M. G. Hinchey and L. Shaoying, editors, ICFEM’97: First IEEE International Conference on Formal Engineering Methods, pages 222–231. IEEE Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. P. Georgeff and F. F. Ingrand. Decision-making in an embedded reasoning system. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), pages 972–978, Detroit, MI, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Luck and M. d’Inverno. A formal framework for agency and autonomy. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 254–260. AAAI Press / MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Luck and M. d’Inverno. Engagement and cooperation in motivated agent modelling. In C. Zhang and D. Lukose, editors, Distributed Artificial Intelligence Architecture and Modelling: Proceedings of the First Australian Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 1087, volume 1087, pages 70–84. Springer Verlag, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Moulin and B. Chaib-draa. An overview of distributed artificial intelligence. In G. M. P. O’Hare and N. R. Jennings (eds), editors, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pages 3–56. JohnWiley and Sons, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. S. Rosenschein. Multiagent planning as a social process:Voting, privacy, and manipulation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), page 431, June 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. S. Sichman, R. Conte, C. Castelfranchi, and Y. Demazeau. A social reasoning mechanism based on dependence networks. In ECAI 94. 11th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 188–192. JohnWiley and Sons, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. M. Spivey. The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead, 2nd edition, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Wooldridge. The Logical Modelling of Computational Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Computation, UMIST, Manchester, UK, October 1992. (Technical Report MMU-DOC-94-01, Department of Computing, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. J. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(2), 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Luck
    • 1
  • Mark d’Inverno
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Cavendish School of Computer ScienceWestminster UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations