Verifying Norm Compliancy of Protocols

  • Huib Aldewereld
  • Javier Vázquez-Salceda
  • Frank Dignum
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3913)


There is a wide agreement on the use of norms in order to specify the expected behaviour of agents in open MAS. However, in highly regulated domains, where norms dictate what can and cannot be done, it can be hard to determine whether a desired goal can actually be achieved without violating the norms. To help the agents in this process, agents can make use of predefined (knowledge-based) protocols, which are designed to help reach a goal without violating any of the norms. But how can we guarantee that these protocols are actually norm-compliant? Can these protocols really realise results without violating the norms? In this paper we introduce a formal method, based on program verification, for checking the norm compliance of (knowledge-based) protocols.


Multiagent System Predicate Logic Safety Property Concurrent Program Deontic Logic 
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.
    Aldewereld, H., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Proving norm compliancy of protocols in electronic institutions. Technical Report UU-CS-2005-010, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boella, G., Lesmo, L.: Deliberative normative agents. In: Dellarocas, C., Conte, R. (eds.) Workshop on Norms and Institutions in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 15–25. ACM-AAAI, ACM Press (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boman, M.: Norms in artificial decission making. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1), 17–35 (1999)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broersen, J., Dignum, F.P.M., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Designing a Deontic Logic of Deadlines. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS, vol. 3065, pp. 43–56. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Jonker, C., Treur, J.: Deliberative Normative Agents: Principles and architecture. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum, F.P.M., Broersen, J., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.: Meeting the deadline: Why, when and how. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3228, pp. 30–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E.A.: Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In: DEXA Workshop, pp. 1134–1140 (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, V.: A Model for Organizational Interaction: based on Agents, founded in Logic. SIKS Dissertation Series 2004-1. SIKS, PhD Thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Estava, M.: Electronic Institutions: from specification to development. PhD thesis, Universitat Politèchnica de Catalunya (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F.: Ontological aspects of the implementation of norms in agent-based electronic institutions. In: 1st International Symposium on Normative Multiagent Systems, NorMAS 2005 (accepted, 2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F.P.M.: From abstract to concrete norms in agent institutions. In: Hinchey, M.G., Rash, J.L., Truszkowski, W.F., Rouff, C.A. (eds.) FAABS 2004. LNCS, vol. 3228, pp. 12–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F.P.M., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Contextual taxonomies. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS, vol. 3487, pp. 33–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hart, H.L.A.: The Concept of Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1961)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kröger, F.: Temporal Logic of Programs. EACTS monographs on theoretical computer science, vol. 8. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)MATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    López y Lopez, F.: Social Power and NormsL Impact on Agent Behaviour. PhD thesis, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Univ. of Southampton (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    López y Lopez, F., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A framework for norm-based inter-agent dependence. In: Proceedings of The Third Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, pp. 31–40. SMCC-INEGI (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer, J.-J.C., Wieringa, R.J.: Deontic logic: A concise overview. In: Deontic Logic in Computer Science: Normative System Specification, pp. 3–16. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Royakkers, L., Dignum, F.: Giving permission implies giving choice. In: Schweighofer, E. (ed.) 8th International Conference and Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Toulouse, France (1997)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sergot, M.J., Sadri, F., Kowalski, R.A., Kriwaczek, F.: The british nationality act as a logic program. Communications of the ACM 29(5), 370–386 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: On social laws for artificial agent societies: Off-line design. Artificial Intelligence 73(1-2), 231–252 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soeteman, A.: Logic in Law: Remarks on logic and rationality in normative reasoning, especially in law. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1989)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Emden, M.H., Kowalski, R.A.: The semantics of predicate logic as a programming language. Journal of the ACM (JACM) 23(4), 733–742 (1976)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.: Implementing norms in multiagent systems. In: Lindemann, G., Denzinger, J., Timm, I.J., Unland, R. (eds.) MATES 2004. LNCS, vol. 3187, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F.P.M.: Modelling electronic organizations. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS, vol. 2691, pp. 584–593. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venkatraman, M., Singh, M.P.: Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 2(3), 217–236 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huib Aldewereld
    • 1
  • Javier Vázquez-Salceda
    • 1
  • Frank Dignum
    • 1
  • John-Jules Ch. Meyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht University 

Personalised recommendations