Group Intention Is Social Choice with Commitment

  • Guido Boella
  • Gabriella Pigozzi
  • Marija Slavkovik
  • Leendert van der Torre
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6541)


An agent intends g if it has chosen to pursue goal g an is committed to pursuing g . How do groups decide on a common goal? Social epistemology offers two views on collective attitudes: according to the summative approach, a group has attitude p if all or most of the group members have the attitude p; according to the non-summative approach, for a group to have attitude p it is required that the members together agree that they have attitude p. The summative approach is used extensively in multi-agent systems. We propose a formalization of non-summative group intentions, using social choice to determine the group goals. We use judgment aggregation as a decision-making mechanism and a multi-modal multi-agent logic to represent the collective attitudes, as well as the commitment and revision strategies for the groups intentions.


Social Choice Linear Temporal Logic Commitment Strategy Individual Judgment Group 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.
    Arrow, K., Sen, A.K., Suzumura, K.: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: The ontological properties of social roles in multi-agent systems: Definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal (AILaw) 15(3), 201–221 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bratman, M.E.: Shared intention. Ethics 104(1), 97–113 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Paglieri, F.: The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: Prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese 155, 237–263 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chapman, B.: Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1(3), 337–354 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Vote elicitation: Complexity and strategy-proofness. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 392–397 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Communication complexity of common voting rules. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 78–87 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series, (09). Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE (August 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietrich, F., List, C.: Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1), 19–33 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Approach. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (July 2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilbert, M.P.: Modeling Collective Belief. Synthese 73, 185–204 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gilbert, M.P.: Belief and acceptance as features of groups. Protosociology: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 16, 35–69 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilbert, M.P.: Acting together, joint commitment, and obligation. Philosophische Analyse/Philosophical Analysis (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilbert, M.P.: Shared Intention and Personal Intentions. Philosophical Studies (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grosz, B., Hunsberger, L.: The dynamics of intention in collaborative activity. Cognitive Systems Research 7(2-3), 259–272 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hakli, R.: Group beliefs and the distinction between belief and acceptance. Cognitive Systems Research 7(2-3), 286–297 (2006); Cognition, Joint Action and Collective IntentionalityCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hartmann, S., Pigozzi, G., Sprenger, J.: Reliable methods of judgment aggregation. Journal of Logic and Computation (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Icard, T., Pacuit, E., Shoham, Y.: Joint revision of belief and intention. In: Proc.of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jennings, N.R.: Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artif. Intell. 75(2), 195–240 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Konieczny, S., Pino-Pérez, R.: Merging with integrity constraints. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) ECSQARU 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1638, pp. 233–244. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Levesque, H.J., Cohen, P.R., Nunes, J.H.T.: On acting together. In: AAAI, pp. 94–99 (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: A survey. In: Anand, P., Puppe, C., Pattanaik, P. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, Oxford (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lorini, E., Longin, D.: A logical account of institutions: From acceptances to norms via legislators. In: KR, pp. 38–48 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lorini, E., Longin, D., Gaudou, B., Herzig, A.: The logic of acceptance. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 901–940 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meijers, A.: Collective agents and cognitive agents. Protosociology. Special Issue Understanding the Social: New Perspectives from Epistemology 16, 70–86 (2002)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L.: A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation. In: Rossi, F., Tsoukias, A. (eds.) ADT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5783, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: SFCS 1977: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1977)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Quinton, A.: The presidential address: Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76, 1–27+viii (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Intentions and rational commitment. In: Proceedings of the First Pacific Rim Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 1990), pp. 94–99 (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P., Sonenberg, E.A.: Social plans: a preliminary report (abstract). SIGOIS Bull. 13, 10 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roy, O.: A dynamic-epistemic hybrid logic for intentions and information changes in strategic games. Synthese 171, 291–320 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roy, O.: Intentions and interactive transformations of decision problems. Synthese 169, 335–349 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schild, K.: On the relationship between bdi logics and standard logics of concurrency. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 259–283 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singh, M.P.: Group intentions. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence (IWDAI 1990) (1990)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tuomela, R., Miller, K.: Groups beliefs. Synthese 91, 285–318 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Uckelman, J., Endriss, U.: Compactly representing utility functions using weighted goals and the max aggregator. Artif. Intell. 174, 1222–1246 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2), 265–290 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wolter, F.: Fusions of modal logics revisited. In: Kracht, M., de Rijke, M., Zakharyaschev, M. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic 96, pp. 361–379. CSLI Lecture Notes (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: The cooperative problem-solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(4) (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Boella
  • Gabriella Pigozzi
  • Marija Slavkovik
  • Leendert van der Torre

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations