Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Commitments and interaction norms in organisations

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In an organisational setting such as an online marketplace, an entity called the ‘organisation’ or ‘institution’ defines interaction protocols, monitors agent interaction, and intervenes to enforce the interaction protocols. The organisation might be a software system that thus regulates the marketplace, for example. In this article we abstract over application-specific protocols and consider commitment lifecycles as generic interaction protocols. We model interaction protocols by explicitly-represented norms, such that we can operationalise the enforcement of protocols by means of norm enforcement, and we can analyse the protocols by a logical analysis of the norms. We adopt insights and methods from commitment-based approaches to agent interaction as well as from norm-based approaches to agent behaviour governance. First, we show how to use explicitly-represented norms to model commitment dynamics (lifecycles). Second, we introduce an operational semantics to operationalise norm enforcement. Third, we show how to logically analyse interaction protocols by means of commitment dynamics and norm enforcement. The model, semantics, and analysis are illustrated by a running example from a vehicle insurance domain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. With its emphasis on autonomy, this notion of agent differs from that in principal–agent theory common in economics. At different levels of abstraction, a human being, a firm, a set of firms, and even a country can all be seen as agents.

  2. www.fsco.gov.on.ca/english/insurance/auto/afterautoaccidentENG.pdf.

  3. We are grateful for a reviewer pointing out that most legal jurisdictions construe commitments as arising only when accepted by someone, not when first uttered: see [57].

References

  1. Alechina, N., Dastani, M., & Logan, B. (2012). Programming norm-aware agents. In Proceedings of AAMAS’12 (pp. 1057–1064).

  2. Alechina, N., Dastani, M., & Logan, B. (2013). Reasoning about normative update. In IJCAI 2013, Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence. Beijing, August 3–9, 2013.

  3. Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., & van der Torre, L. (Eds.). (2013). Normative multi-agent systems, dagstuhl follow-ups (Vol. 4). Dagstuhl: Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., & Marengo, E. (2010). Behavior-oriented commitment-based protocols. In Proceedings of ECAI’10 (pp. 137–142).

  5. Baldoni, M., Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2006). Roles as a coordination construct: Introducing powerJava. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 150(1), 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baldoni, M., Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2009). The interplay between relationships, roles and objects. In Proceedings of 3rd international conference on fundamentals of software engineering (FSEN’09) (pp. 402–415)

  7. Billhardt, H., Centeno, R., Cuesta, C. E., Fernández, A., Hermoso, R., Ortiz, R., et al. (2011). Organisational structures in next-generation distributed systems: Towards a technology of agreement. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 7(2–3), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boella, G., Broersen, J., & van der Torre, L. (2008). Reasoning about constitutive norms, counts-as conditionals, institutions, deadlines and violations. In Proceedings of PRIMA’08 (pp. 86–97).

  9. Boella, G., Damiano, R., Hulstijn, J., & van der Torre, L. (2007). A common ontology of agent communication languages: Modelling mental attitudes and social commitments using roles. Applied Ontology, 2(3–4), 217–265.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Boella, G., Hulstijn, J., & van der Torre, L. (2005). Interaction in normative multi-agent systems. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 141(5), 135–162.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2004). Regulative and constitutive norms in normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of KR’04 (pp. 255–266).

  12. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2006). Coordination and organization: Definitions, examples and future research directions. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 150(3), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2007). The ontological properties of social roles in multi-agent systems: Definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 15(3), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2008). Substantive and procedural norms in normative multiagent systems. Journal of Applied Logic, 6(2), 152–171.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2006). Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(2–3), 71–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boella, G., van der Torre, L., & Verhagen, H. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on normative multiagent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 17(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Broersen, J. M., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., & van der Torre, L. (2001). The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In Proceedings of 5th international conference on autonomous agents (Agents’01) (pp. 9–16).

  18. Bulling, N., & Dastani, M. (2011). Verifying normative behaviour via normative mechanism design. In Proceedings of IJCAI’11 (pp. 103–108).

  19. Bulling, N., Dastani, M., & Knobbout, M. (2013). Monitoring norm violations in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS’13 (pp. 491–498).

  20. Carabelea, C., & Boissier, O. (2006). Coordinating agents in organizations using social commitments. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 150(3), 73–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In Proceedings of 1st international conference on multiagent systems (ICMAS’95) (pp. 41–48).

  22. Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2009). Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In Proceedings of IJCAI’09 (pp. 91–96).

  23. Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., & Torroni, P. (2013). Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 27(1), 85–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chopra, A. K., Dalpiaz, F., Giorgini, P., & Mylopoulos, J. (2010) Modeling and reasoning about service-oriented applications via goals and commitments. In Proceedings of CAiSE’10 (pp. 113–128).

  25. Chopra, A. K., & Singh, M. P. (2011). Specifying and applying commitment-based business patterns. In Proceedings of AAMAS’11 (pp. 475–482).

  26. Coffee, J. C, Jr, & Sale, H. A. (2012). Securities regulation (12th ed.). Eagan, MN: Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Colombetti, M. (2000). A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In Proceedings of workshop on agent languages and communication policies (pp. 21–29).

  28. Dastani, M. (2009). Normative multi-agent organizations. In Engineering societies in the agents world X, LNCS (Vol. 5881, pp. 247–249). Heidelberg: Springer.

  29. Dastani, M., Arbab, F., & de Boer, F. S. (2005). Coordination and composition in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS’05 (pp. 439–446).

  30. Dastani, M., Meyer, J. C., & Grossi, D. (2013). A logic for normative multi-agent programs. Journal of Logic and Computation, 23(2), 335–354.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Dastani, M., Meyer, J. C., & Tinnemeier, N. A. M. (2012). Programming norm change. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 22(1–2), 151–180.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Dastani, M., Tinnemeier, N., & Meyer, J. J. C. (2009). A programming language for normative multi-agent systems. In Multi-agent systems: Semantics and dynamics of organizational models. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

  33. Dastani M. van der Torre, L., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2012). A programming approach to monitoring commitments in an organisational environment. In Proceedings of AAMAS’12 (pp. 1373–1374).

  34. Dastani, M., van der Torre, L., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2013). Monitoring interaction in organisations. In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems VIII. LNCS (Vol. 7756, pp. 17–34). Heidelberg: Springer.

  35. de Boer, F. S., van Eijk, R., van der Hoek, W., & Meyer, J. J. (2003). A fully abstract model for the exchange of information in multi-agent systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 290(3), 1753–1773.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Dechesne, F., di Tosto, G., Dignum, V., & Dignum, F. (2013). No smoking here: Values, norms and culture in multi-agent systems. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 21(1), 79–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. El Menshawy, M., Bentahar, J., Qu, H., & Dssouli, R. (2011). On the verification of social commitments and time. In Proceedings of AAMAS’11 (pp. 483–490).

  38. Esparcia, S., Argente, E., Centeno, R., & Hermoso, R. (2011). Enhancing MAS environments with organizational mechanisms. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 20(4), 663–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Felipe, L. O., Álvarez-Napagao, S., & Vázquez-Salceda, J. (2012). Towards a framework for the analysis of regulative norm performance in complex networks. In Proceedings of 1st international conference on agreement technogolies (AT’12) (pp. 103–104).

  40. FIPA. (2002). Communicative act library specification. Retrieved October 21, 2015, from www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00037/SC00037J.html.

  41. Flores, R. A., Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2007). Conversational semantics sustained by commitments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 14, 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fornara, N., & Colombetti, M. (2004). A commitment-based approach to agent communication. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 18(9–10), 853–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fornara, N., Viganò, F., & Colombetti, M. (2007). Agent communication and artificial institutions. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 14, 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gabbay, D., Horty, J., Parent, X., van der Meyden, R., & van der Torre, L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of deontic logic and normative systems. London: College Publications.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Grossi, D., Dignum, F., Dastani, M., & Royakkers, L. M. M. (2005). Foundations of organizational structures in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS’05 (pp. 690–697).

  46. Günay, A., Winikoff, M., & Yolum, P. (2015). Dynamically generated commitment protocols in open systems. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(2), 192–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Jonge, D. D., Rosell, B., & Sierra, C. (2013). Human interactions in electronic institutions. In Proceedings of 2nd international conference on agreement technologies (AT’13) (pp. 75–89).

  48. Kafalı, O., & Torroni, P. (2011). Social commitment delegation and monitoring. In J. Leite, P. Torroni, T. Gotnes, G. Boella, & L. van der Torre (Eds.), Computational logic in multi-agent systems, LNCS (Vol. 6814, pp. 171–189). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Kibble, R. (2006). Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 12, 127–145.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  50. Knobbout, M., & Dastani, M. (2012). Reasoning under compliance assumptions in normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS’12 (pp. 331–340).

  51. Mallya, A. U., Yolum, P., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Resolving commitments among autonomous agents. In Proceedings of workshop on agent communication, LNCS (Vol. 2922, pp. 166–182). Heidelberg: Springer.

  52. Marengo, E., Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Chopra, A. K., Patti, V., & Singh, M. P. (2011). Commitments with regulations: Reasoning about safety and control in regula. In Proceedings of AAMAS’11 (pp. 467–474).

  53. McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., & Amgoud, L. (2003). A dialogue game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 7(3), 235–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ohlbach, H. J., & Gabbay, D. (1998). Calendar logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 8(4), 291–323.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Pasquier, P., & Chaib-draa, B. (2006). Integrating social commitment-based communication in cognitive agent modeling. In Agent communication II. LNCS (Vol. 3859, pp. 76–92). Heidelberg: Springer.

  56. Raffaini, M. (2001). The virtual organisation. In Proceedings of 7th international conference on concurrent enterprising (ICE’01).

  57. Reinach, A. (1913). Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, chap. Die apriorischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen Rechtes (Vol. 1, pp. 685–847). Halle: M. Niemeyer.

  58. Riemsdijk, M. B. V., Hindriks, K. V., & Jonker, C. M. (2009). Programming organization-aware agents. In H. Aldewereld, V. Dignum, & G. Picard (Eds.), Engineering societies in the agents world X, LNCS (Vol. 5881, pp. 98–112). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York, NY: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Singh, M. P. (1997). Commitments among autonomous agents in information-rich environments. In Proceedings 8th european workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world (pp. 141–155).

  62. Singh, M. P. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Issues in agent communication 2000, LNCS 1916 (pp. 31–45). Heidelberg: Springer.

  63. Singh, M. P. (2013). Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 5(1), 21.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  64. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Telang, P. R., & Singh, M. P. (2012). Specifying and verifying cross-organizational business models. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 5, 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tinnemeier, N. A. M., Dastani, M., & Meyer, J. C. (2009). Roles and norms for programming agent organizations. In Proceedings of AAMAS’09 (pp. 121–128).

  67. van der Torre, L. W. N., Hulstijn, J., Dastani, M., & Broersen, J. M. (2004). Specifying multiagent organizations. In Proceedings of 7th international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON’04) (pp. 243–257).

  68. Venkatraman, M., & Singh, M. P. (1999). Verifying compliance with commitment protocols. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 2(3), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Weber, M. (Ed.). (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York, NY: The Free Press. Translated by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons.

  70. Winikoff, M. (2007). Implementing commitment-based interactions. In Proceedings of AAMAS’07 (pp. 873–880).

  71. Xing, J., & Singh, M. P. (2003). Engineering commitment-based multiagent systems: A temporal logic approach. In Proceedings of AAMAS’03 (pp. 891–898).

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the JAAMAS reviewers who helped us improve the article. We thank the participants of the COIN’12 workshop at AAMAS’12 for the discussions of the preliminary idea of the article [34], and for suggestions that have directed our investigations. Further preliminary presentation of this work was made at the AAMAS’12 conference [33]. Thanks to Amit Chopra, Steven McNamara and Paolo Torroni. NYS Acknowledges Award Number 102853 from the University Research Board, American University of Beirut, and thanks the Operations group at the Cambridge Judge Business School and the fellowship at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Mehdi Dastani

  2. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Leendert van der Torre

  3. American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Neil Yorke-Smith

Authors
  1. Mehdi Dastani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leendert van der Torre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil Yorke-Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Yorke-Smith.

Additional information

The foundations of the ideas developed in this article were presented at the COIN workshop at AAMAS’12 [34] and briefly summarized at the AAMAS’12 conference [33].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dastani, M., van der Torre, L. & Yorke-Smith, N. Commitments and interaction norms in organisations. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 31, 207–249 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9321-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9321-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation