Implementing Collective Obligations in Human-Agent Teams Using KAoS Policies

  • Jurriaan van Diggelen
  • Jeffrey M. Bradshaw
  • Matthew Johnson
  • Andrzej Uszok
  • Paul J. Feltovich
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6069)


Obligations can apply to individuals, either severally or collectively. When applied severally, each individual or member of a team is independently responsible to fulfill the obligation. When applied collectively, it is the group as a whole that becomes responsible, with individual members sharing the obligation. In this paper, we present several variations of common teamwork models involving the performance of collective obligations. Some of these rely heavily on a leader to ensure effective teamwork, whereas others leave much room for member autonomy. We strongly focus on the implementation of such models. We demonstrate how KAoS policies can be used to establish desired forms of cooperation through regulation of agent behavior. Some of these policies concern invariant aspects of teamwork, such as how to behave when a leader is present, how to ensure that actions are properly coordinated, and how to delegate actions. Other policies can be enabled or disabled to regulate the degree of autonomy of the team members. We have implemented a prototype of a Mars-mission scenario that demonstrates varying team behavior when applied across these different teamwork models.


Human-agent teams Policies Collective Obligations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baader, F., Calvanese, D., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradshaw, J.M., et al.: Representation and reasoning for DAML-based policy and domain services in KAoS and Nomads. In: Proceedings of the Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Conference (AAMAS). ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burton, R.M., DeSanctis, G., Obel, B.: Organizational Design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.J.: Teamwork. SRI International, Menlo Park (1991)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidsson, P.: Emergent Societies of Information Agents. In: Klusch, M., Kerschberg, L. (eds.) CIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1860, pp. 143–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Diggelen, J., Bradshaw, J.M., Grant, T., Johnson, M., Neerincx, M.: Policy-Based Design of Human-Machine Collaboration in Manned Space Missions. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Space Mission Challenges for Information Technology, SMC-IT09 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, F., Royakkers, L.: Collective Obligation and Commitment. In: Proceedings of 5th Int. conference on Law in the Information Society, Florence (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, V.: A Model for Organizational Interaction. SIKS Dissertation Series (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esteva, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J., Rosell, B., Arcos, J.: Ameli: An agent-based middleware for electronic institutions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 236–243 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Feltovich, P.J., Bradshaw, J.M., Clancey, W.J., Johnson, M., Bunch, L.: Progress appraisal as a challenging element of coordination in human and machine joint activity. In: Artikis, A., O’Hare, G.M.P., Stathis, K., Vouros, G.A. (eds.) ESAW 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4995, pp. 124–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gómez, M., Plaza, E.: Dynamic Composition of Electronic Institutions for Teamwork. In: Sichman, J.S., Padget, J., Ossowski, S., Noriega, P. (eds.) COIN 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4870, pp. 155–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grant, T., Soler, A.O., Bos, A., Brauer, U., Neerincx, M., Wolff, M.: Space Autonomy as Migration of Functionality: The Mars Case. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international Conference on Space Mission Challenges For information Technology (SMC-IT), pp. 195–201. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grossi, D.: Designing Invisible Handcuffs. Formal Investigations in Institutions and Organizations for Multi-agent Systems. SIKS Dissertation Series 2007-16, Utrecht University (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Royakkers, L., Meyer, J.-J.C.: Collective Obligations and Agents: Who Gets the Blame? In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 129–145. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hübner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: A Model for the Structural, Functional, and Deontic Specification of Organizations in Multiagent Systems. In: Bittencourt, G., Ramalho, G.L. (eds.) SBIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2507, pp. 118–128. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hubner, J.F., Sichman, J.S., Boissier, O.: Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE+ model: programming issues at the system and agent levels. Int. J. Agent-Oriented Softw. Eng. 1(3/4), 370–395 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johnson, M., Feltovich, P.J., Bradshaw, J.M., Bunch, L.: Demonstrating Human-Robot Coordination through Dynamic Regulation, policy. In: IEEE Workshop on Policies for Distributed Systems and Networks, pp. 231–232 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein, G., Woods, D., Bradshaw, J.M., Hoffman, R.R., Feltovich, P.J.: Ten Challenges for Making Automation a Team Player. IEEE Intelligent Systems in Joint Human-Agent Activity 19(6) (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neerincx, M.A., Bos, A., Olmedo-Soler, A., Brauer, U., Breebaart, L., Smets, N., Lindenberg, J., Grant, T., Wolff, M.: The Mission Execution Crew Assistant: Improving Human-Machine Team Resilience for Long Duration Missions. In: Proc. of the 59th International Astronautical Congress, IAC 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Omicini, A., Ricci, A., Viroli, M., Castelfranchi, C., Tummolini, L.: Coordination Artifacts: Environment-Based Coordination for Intelligent Agents. In: Proceedings of the Third international Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubino, R., Omicini, A., Denti, E.: Computational institutions for modelling Norm-regulated MAS: an approach based on coordination artifacts. In: Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J.S., Vázquez-Salceda, J. (eds.) ANIREM 2005 and OOOP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3913, pp. 127–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Steffik, M.: Introduction to Knowledge Systems. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sycara, K., Lewis, M.: Integrating intelligent agents into human teams. In: Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive Process and Performance, pp. 203–232. American Psychological Association, Washington (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tambe, M.: Towards Flexible Teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 83–124 (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurriaan van Diggelen
    • 1
  • Jeffrey M. Bradshaw
    • 2
  • Matthew Johnson
    • 2
  • Andrzej Uszok
    • 2
  • Paul J. Feltovich
    • 2
  1. 1.TNO Defense, Security and SafetySoesterbergThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC)PensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations