Representing Excuses in Social Dependence Networks

  • Guido Boella
  • Jan Broersen
  • Leendert van der Torre
  • Serena Villata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5883)


In this paper, we propose a representation of excuses in the context of multiagent systems. We distinguish five classes of excuses, taking as starting point both jurisprudential and philosophical studies about this topic, and we discuss their acceptance criteria. We highlight the following classes of excuses: epistemic excuses, power-based excuses, norm-based excuses, counts as-based excuses and social-based excuses and we represent them using social dependence networks. The acceptance criteria individuate those excuses which success in maintaining the trust of the other agents, e.g. in the context of social networks, excuses based on norms seem better than counts as-based ones in achieving this aim.


Multiagent System Acceptance Criterion Deontic Logic Dependence Network Normative Goal 
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.
    Austin, J.L.: A plea for excuses. Philosophical Papers (1961)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Social viewpoints for arguing about coalitions. In: Bui, T.D., Ho, T.V., Ha, Q.-T. (eds.) PRIMA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5357, pp. 66–77. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caire, P., Villata, S., Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Conviviality masks in multiagent systems. In: Padgham, L., Parkes, D.C., Müller, J., Parsons, S. (eds.) AAMAS (3), pp. 1265–1268. IFAAMAS (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCullough, M., Worthington, E.L., Rachal, K.C.: Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 321–336 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson, P.H.: Criminal law defenses: A systematic analysis. Columbia Law Review (199) (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sichman, J.S., Conte, R.: Multi-agent dependence by dependence graphs. In: AAMAS, pp. 483–490. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., Pitt, J.V.: In praise of forgiveness: Ways for repairing trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 66, 466–480 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Villata, S.: Institutional social dynamic dependence networks. In: Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., Singh, M.P., Verhagen, H. (eds.) NORMAS, pp. 201–215 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
    • 1
  • Jan Broersen
    • 2
  • Leendert van der Torre
    • 3
  • Serena Villata
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di InformaticaUniversity of TurinItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of scienceUniversiteit UtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CSCUniversity of LuxembourgLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations