Modelling Institutions Using Dynamic Deontics

  • Christopher FrantzEmail author
  • Martin K. Purvis
  • Mariusz Nowostawski
  • Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8386)


We have developed a refined institutional scheme derived from Crawford and Ostrom’s Grammar of Institutions (also referred to as ADICO) that has been adapted for the detailed representation of conventions, norms, and rules. In this work we apply this schema to model the emergence of norms. While previous work in the area of normative agent systems largely represents obligation and prohibition norms by discrete deontic primitives (e.g. ‘must’, ‘must not’, ‘may’), we propose the concept of dynamic deontics to represent a continuous perspective on emerging institutions. This supports the expression of norm salience based on the differentiated internal representation among participants.

To demonstrate how it can be operationalised for dynamic modelling of norms in artificial societies, we apply nADICO to a simple agent-based simulation. Our intention is to arrive at a dynamic modelling of institutions in general, facilitating a movement beyond the artificial boundaries between different institution types, while making the institutional grammar purposeful for a wide range of application domains.


Dynamic deontics Institutions Norms Grammar of institutions Nested ADICO nADICO Reinforcement learning Social learning Norm enforcement Multi-agent systems 


  1. 1.
    Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., Vasconcelos, W.: We ought to; they do; blame the management! - a conceptualisation of group norms. In: Balke, T., Dignum, F., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Chopra, A.K. (eds.) COIN 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8386, pp. 195–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrighetto, G., Villatoro, D., Conte, R.: Norm internalization in artificial societies. AI Commun. 23(4), 325–339 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bandura, A., Ross, D., Ross, S.: Transmission of aggressions through imitation of aggressive models. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 63, 575–582 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cortell, A.P., Davis Jr, J.W.: Understanding the domestic impact of international norms: a research agenda. Int. Stud. Rev. 2(1), 65–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawford, S.E., Ostrom, E.: A Grammar of Institutions. In: Ostrom, E. (ed.) Understanding Institutional Diversity (Chapt.  5), pp. 137–174. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frantz, C., Purvis, M.K., Nowostawski, M., Savarimuthu, B.T.R.: nADICO: A Nested Grammar of Institutions. In: Boella, G., Elkind, E., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Dignum, F., Purvis, M.K. (eds.) PRIMA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8291, pp. 429–436. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghorbani, A., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., Noriega, P.: Shared strategies in artificial agent societies. In: Aldewereld, H., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) COIN 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7756, pp. 71–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghorbani, A., Bots, P., Dignum, V., Dijkema, G.: MAIA: a framework for developing agent-based social simulations. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 16(2), 9 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghose, A., Savarimuthu, T.B.R.: Norms as objectives: revisiting compliance management in multi-agent systems. In: Aldewereld, H., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) COIN 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7756, pp. 105–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.P.M.: Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena: designing norm enforcement in E-Institutions. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 101–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Henrich, J.: Does culture matter in economic behaviour? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. Am. Econ. Rev. 90(4), 973–979 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kinzig, A.P., Ehrlich, P.R., Alston, L.J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T.G., Daily, G.C., Levin, B., Levin, S., Oppenheimer, M., Ostrom, E., Saari, D.: Social norms and global environmental challenges: the complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. Bioscience 63(3), 164–175 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luke, S., Cioffi-Revilla, C., Panait, L., Sullivan, K., Balan, G.: MASON: a multiagent simulation environment. Simulation 81(7), 517–527 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahmoud, S., Griffiths, N., Keppens, J., Luck, M.: Efficient norm emergence through experiential dynamic punishment. In: ECAI’12, pp. 576–581 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menger, C.: Problems in Economics and Sociology. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1963)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyer, J.-J.C.: A different approach to deontic logic: deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 29, 109–136 (1988)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    North, D.C.: Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrom, E.: Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Panagiotidi, S., Alvarez-Napagao, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J.: Towards the norm-aware agent: bridging the gap between deontic specifications and practical mechanisms for norm monitoring and norm-aware planning. In: Balke, T., Dignum, F., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Chopra, A.K. (eds.) COIN 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8386, pp. 346–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Arulanandam, R., Purvis, M.: Aspects of active norm learning and the effect of lying on norm emergence in agent societies. In: Kinny, D., Hsu, J.Y., Governatori, G., Ghose, A.K. (eds.) PRIMA 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7047, pp. 36–50. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Savarimuthu, T., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.A., Purvis, M.K.: Obligation norm identification in agent societies. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 13(4), 3 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schlüter, A., Theesfeld, I.: The Grammar of Institutions: the challenge of distinguishing between strategies, norms, and rules. Ration. Soc. 22, 445–475 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scott, W.R.: Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory Soc. 37, 427–442 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shimanoff, S.B.: Communication Rules: Theory and Research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1980)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Siddiki, S., Weible, C.M., Basurto, X., Calanni, J.: Dissecting policy designs: an application of the institutional grammar tool. Policy Stud. J. 39, 79–103 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smajgl, A., Izquierdo, L., Huigen, M.G.A.: Rules, knowledge and complexity: how agents shape their institutional environment. J. Model. Simul. Syst. 1(2), 98–107 (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ullmann-Margalit, E.: The Emergence of Norms. Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1977)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Villatoro, D., Andrighetto, G., Sabater-Mir, J., Conte, R.: Dynamic sanctioning for robust and cost-efficient norm compliance. In: IJCAI’11, pp. 414–419. AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    von Wright, G.H.: An Essay in Modal Logic. North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1951)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1963)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Watkins, C.: Learning from delayed rewards. Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Frantz
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin K. Purvis
    • 1
  • Mariusz Nowostawski
    • 2
  • Bastin Tony Roy Savarimuthu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceUniversity of OtagoOtagoNew Zealand
  2. 2.Faculty of Computer Science and Media TechnologyGjøvik University CollegeGjøvikNorway

Personalised recommendations