Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems

COIN 2010: Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI pp 152–171Cite as

Group Intention Is Social Choice with Commitment

  • Conference paper

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 6541)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

  • 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arrow, K., Sen, A.K., Suzumura, K.: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  3. Bratman, M.E.: Shared intention. Ethics 104(1), 97–113 (1993)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Castelfranchi, C., Paglieri, F.: The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: Prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese 155, 237–263 (2007)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman, B.: Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1(3), 337–354 (2002)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Vote elicitation: Complexity and strategy-proofness. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 392–397 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Communication complexity of common voting rules. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 78–87 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Dietrich, F., List, C.: Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1), 19–33 (2007)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Approach. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (July 2010)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gilbert, M.P.: Modeling Collective Belief. Synthese 73, 185–204 (1987)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Gilbert, M.P.: Acting together, joint commitment, and obligation. Philosophische Analyse/Philosophical Analysis (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gilbert, M.P.: Shared Intention and Personal Intentions. Philosophical Studies (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Grosz, B., Hunsberger, L.: The dynamics of intention in collaborative activity. Cognitive Systems Research 7(2-3), 259–272 (2007)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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 Intentionality

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Hartmann, S., Pigozzi, G., Sprenger, J.: Reliable methods of judgment aggregation. Journal of Logic and Computation (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Jennings, N.R.: Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artif. Intell. 75(2), 195–240 (1995)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Levesque, H.J., Cohen, P.R., Nunes, J.H.T.: On acting together. In: AAAI, pp. 94–99 (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Lorini, E., Longin, D.: A logical account of institutions: From acceptances to norms via legislators. In: KR, pp. 38–48 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lorini, E., Longin, D., Gaudou, B., Herzig, A.: The logic of acceptance. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 901–940 (2009)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. 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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Quinton, A.: The presidential address: Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76, 1–27+viii (1975)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  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. Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P., Sonenberg, E.A.: Social plans: a preliminary report (abstract). SIGOIS Bull. 13, 10 (1992)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  33. Roy, O.: A dynamic-epistemic hybrid logic for intentions and information changes in strategic games. Synthese 171, 291–320 (2009)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Roy, O.: Intentions and interactive transformations of decision problems. Synthese 169, 335–349 (2009)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Singh, M.P.: Group intentions. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence (IWDAI 1990) (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Tuomela, R., Miller, K.: Groups beliefs. Synthese 91, 285–318 (1992)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Uckelman, J., Endriss, U.: Compactly representing utility functions using weighted goals and the max aggregator. Artif. Intell. 174, 1222–1246 (2010)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2), 265–290 (2007)

    CrossRef  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: The cooperative problem-solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(4) (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Guido Boella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriella Pigozzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marija Slavkovik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK

    Marina De Vos

  2. Università della Svizzera italiana, via G. Buffi 13, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland

    Nicoletta Fornara

  3. Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2BT, UK

    Jeremy V. Pitt

  4. Department of Information and Communication Systems Engineering, University of the Aegean, 83200, Karlovassi, Samos, Greece

    George Vouros

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L. (2011). Group Intention Is Social Choice with Commitment. In: De Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI. COIN 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6541. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21267-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21268-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

search

Navigation