Shared Strategies in Artificial Agent Societies

  • Amineh Ghorbani
  • Huib Aldewereld
  • Virginia Dignum
  • Pablo Noriega
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7756)


A shared strategy is a social concept that refers to a type of behavioural pattern that is followed by a significant number of individuals although it is, prima facie, not associated with an obligation or a prohibition. E. Ostrom has argued in favour of the pertinence of social strategies for institutional design and evolution and proposed a characterization suggestive of formal treatment. However, shared strategies as such have not been explicitly used in the context of regulated MAS in spite of their relevance and their affinity to more standard normative notions, of which a rich tradition exists in MAS research. In this paper, we discuss the notion of shared strategy, characterize its distinguishing features, propose its formalization using a temporal epistemic logic, and explore its potential use in regulated multi-agent systems.


Institutional Statement Shared Strategy Agent Society Epistemic Logic 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.: Autonomy vs. Conformity: an Institutional Perspective on Norms and Protocols. SIKS Dissertation Series 2007-10. Utrecht University, PhD Thesis (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, A.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67, 100–103 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrighetto, G., Villatoro, D., Conte, R.: Norm internalization in artificial societies. AI Communications 23(4), 325–339 (2010)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arcos, J., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodrguez, J., Sierra, C.: Engineering open environments with electronic institutions. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18(2), 191–204 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M.: Seeing to it that: a canonical form for agentives. Theoria 54(3), 175–199 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crawford, S., Ostrom, E.: A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 582–600 (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Collective intentions. Fundamenta Informaticae 51(3), 271–295 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emerson, E.: Temporal and modal logic. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, pp. 955–1072. MIT Press (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engelfriet, J.: Minimal temporal epistemic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 37(2), 233–259 (1996)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grosz, B., Kraus, S.: Collaborative plans for complex group action. Artificial Intelligence 86(2), 269–357 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosz, B., Sidner, C.: Plans for discourse. Technical report, DTIC Document (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodgson, G., Knudsen, T.: The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention: the functions and implications of habit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 54(1), 19–47 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klijn, E., Koppenjan, J.: Institutional design. Public Management Review 8(1), 141–160 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, J.-J.C., van der Hoek, W.: Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science. Cambridge University Press (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    North, D.: Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Okuyama, F., Bordini, R., da Rocha Costa, A.: Spatially distributed normative objects. In: Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II, pp. 133–146 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ostrom, E.: Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton Univ. Pr. (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J.: Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Univ. of Michigan Pr. (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pettit, P.: Institutional Design and Rational Choice, pp. 54–89. Cambridge University Press (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Savarimuthu, B., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M., Purvis, M.: Norm emergence in agent societies formed by dynamically changing networks. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 7(3), 223–232 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schank, R., Abelson, R., et al.: Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures, vol. 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Nueva Jersey (1977)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J.: Normative Planning: Semantics and Implementation. In: 13th International Workshop on Coordination, Organizations, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems (COIN@WI-IAT), Lyon, France (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    van der Torre, L.: Deontic Redundancy: A Fundamental Challenge for Deontic Logic. In: Governatori, G., Sartor, G. (eds.) DEON 2010. LNCS, vol. 6181, pp. 11–32. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Villatoro, D., Sen, S., Sabater-Mir, J.: Of social norms and sanctioning: A game theoretical overview. International Journal of Agent Technologies and Systems (IJATS) 2(1), 1–15 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amineh Ghorbani
    • 1
  • Huib Aldewereld
    • 1
  • Virginia Dignum
    • 1
  • Pablo Noriega
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute of the Spanish National Scientific Research CouncilBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations