Informed Deliberation During Norm-Governed Practical Reasoning
A norm-governed agent takes social norms into account in its practical reasoning. Such norms characterise its role within a specific organisational context. By adopting a role, the agent commits to fulfil and adhere to the social norms associated with that role. These commitments require the agent to act in a way that does not violate any of its prohibitions or obligations. In adopting different sets of norms, an agent may experience conflicts between these norms as well as inconsistencies between possible actions for fulfilling its obligations and its currently adopted set of norms. In order to resolve such problems, it must be informed about conflicts and inconsistencies. The NoA architecture for norm-governed agents implements a computationally efficient mechanism for identifying and indicating such problems – possible candidates for action are assigned a specific label that contains cross-referenced information of actions and norms. As actions are indicated as problematic and not simply filtered out, the agent can still choose to either act according to its norms or against them. The labelling mechanism presented in this paper is therefore a critical step towards enabling an agent to reason about norm violations – the agent becomes norm-autonomous.
KeywordsPractical Reasoning Autonomous Agent Plan Procedure Resolution Strategy Reactive Planning
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bordini, R., Huebner, J.: Jason: A Java-based AgentSpeak Interpreter used with Saci for Multi-Agent Distribution over the Net, Manual (2004)Google Scholar
- 2.Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: Conflicts between Beliefs, Obligations, Intentions and Desires. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents 2001, pp. 9–16 (2001)Google Scholar
- 5.Conte, R., Falcone, R., Sartor, G.: Agents and Norms: How to fill the Gap? Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1) (March 1999)Google Scholar
- 7.Dignum, F., Kinny, D., Sonenberg, L.: From Desires, Obligations and Norms to Goals. Cognitive Science Quarterly 2(3–4), 407–430 (2002)Google Scholar
- 8.Firby, R.J.: An Investigation into Reactive Planning in Complex Domains. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intellgence (AAAI), pp. 809–815 (1987)Google Scholar
- 10.Georgeff, M.P., Lansky, A.: Reactive Reasoning and Planning. In: Proceedings AAAI 1987, Seattle, WA, pp. 677–682 (1987)Google Scholar
- 12.Kollingbaum, M.J.: Norm-governed Practical Reasoning Agents. PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen (2005)Google Scholar
- 13.Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: Supervised Interaction - creating a Web of Trust for Contracting Agents in Electronic Environments. In: Castelfranchi, C., Johnson, W. (eds.) First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems AAMAS 2002, pp. 272–279. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
- 14.Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: Strategies for Resolving Norm Conflict in Practical Reasoning. In: ECAI Workshop CEAS (2004)Google Scholar
- 15.Lopez y Lopez, F., Luck, M., dÍnverno, M.: Constraining autonomy through norms. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp. 647–681 (2002)Google Scholar