Revising Institutions Governed by Institutions for Compliant Regulations

  • Thomas C. King
  • Tingting Li
  • Marina De Vos
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Julian Padget
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9628)


Institutions governing multi-agent systems (MASs) are a pervasive means to guide agents towards the aims of the MAS (e.g. collecting data) with regulations on the outcomes of agents’ behaviour. Yet, wider organisations/governments often intend to guide the design of institutions governing MAS in meeting different aims (e.g. preserving the rights of agents). A pervasive means to guide the design of MAS-governing institutions (or any institution, for that matter) is to use institutions at higher tiers of governance (e.g. directives, constitutions) to regulate the regulations of institutions at lower tiers of governance (e.g. national legislation, software policies). A recent innovation has been an automated means to determine the compliance of a lower-tier institution’s regulations with a higher-tier’s. However, for a designer of a non-compliant institution there remains a dilemma: be punished for non-compliant regulations or arduously determine and rectify the underlying causes of non-compliance. In this paper we propose a way to automatically determine how to revise an institution to be compliant that also minimises the change in the regulations’ outcomes thus keeping as closely as possible to the institution designers’ original intentions.


Multi-tier institutions Norm revision Institution revision Institutional compliance 



Thomas C. King is supported by TU Delft’s SHINE ( project. Authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of COIN@IJCAI 2015 for their helpful comments and Brian Logan for the discussion following the workshop.


  1. 1.
    Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., van der Torre, L.: Normative Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 4. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baral, C.: Knowledge Representation, Reasoning and Declarative Problem Solving. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., van der Torre, L.: Normative framework for normative system change. In: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 1, pp. 169–176 (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: Answer set programming for representing and reasoning about virtual institutions. In: Inoue, K., Satoh, K., Toni, F. (eds.) CLIMA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4371, pp. 60–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Corapi, D., Ray, O., Russo, A., Bandara, A., Lupu, E.: Learning rules from user behaviour. Artif. Intell. Appl. Innov. III(296), 459–468 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corapi, D., Russo, A., Lupu, E.: Inductive logic programming as abductive search. In: ICLP (Technical Communications), pp. 54–63 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gebser, M., Kaufmann, B., Kaminski, R.: Potassco: the Potsdam answer set solving collection. AI Commun. 24(2), 107–124 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfond, M., Lifschitz, V.: The stable model semantics for logic programming. In: ICLP/SLP, pp. 1070–1080 (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A.: Changing legal systems: legal abrogations and annulments in defeasible logic. Logic J. IGPL 18(1), 157–194 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    King, T.C., Li, T., De Vos, M., Dignum, V., Jonker, C.M., Padget, J., Riemsdijk, M.B.V.: A framework for institutions governing institutions. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2015) (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leone, N., Pfeifer, G., Faber, W., Eiter, T., Gottlob, G., Perri, S., Scarcello, F.: The DLV system for knowledge representation and reasoning. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic (TOCL) 7(3), 499–562 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, T.: Normative conflict detection and resolution in cooperating institutions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Bath (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li, T., Balke, T., De Vos, M., Padget, J., Satoh, K.: Legal Conflict Detection in Interacting Legal Systems. In: DoCoPe@ JURIX (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li, T., Vos, M.D., Padget, J., Satoh, K., Balke, T.: Debugging ASP using ILP. In: Technical Communcations of ICLP 2015 (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liesbet, H., Gary, M.: Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 97(2), 233–243 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lu, H., Pan, W., Lane, N., Choudhury, T., Campbell, A.: SoundSense: scalable sound sensing for people-centric applications on mobile phones. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services, pp. 165–178 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muggleton, S.: Inverse entailment and Progol. New Gener. Comput. 13(3–4), 245–286 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Searle, J.R.: What is an institution? J. Inst. Econ. 1, 1–22 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    United States Federal Law. Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vasconcelos, W., Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: Resolving conflict and inconsistency in norm-regulated virtual organizations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, vol. 5, pp. 632–639. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas C. King
    • 1
  • Tingting Li
    • 2
  • Marina De Vos
    • 3
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Julian Padget
    • 3
  • M. Birna van Riemsdijk
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations