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

Rights and Argumentation in Open Multi-Agent Systems

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As utility calculus cannot account for an important part of agents' behaviour in Multi-Agent Systems, researchers have progressively adopted a more normative approach. Unfortunately, social laws have turned out to be too restrictive in real-life domains where autonomous agents' activity cannot be completely specified in advance. It seems that a halfway concept between anarchic and off-line constrained interaction is needed. We think that the concept of right suits this idea. Rights improve coordination and facilitate social action in Multi-Agent domains.Rights allow the agents enough freedom, and at the same time constrain them (prohibiting specific actions). Besides, rights can be understood as the basic concept underneath open normativesystems where the agents reason about the code they must abide by. Typically, in such systems this code is underspecified. On the other hand, the agents might not have complete knowledge about the rules governing their interaction. Conflict situations arise, thus, when the agents have different points of view as to how to apply the code. We have extended Parsons's et al. argumentation protocol (Parsons et al. 1998a, b) to normative systems to deal with this problem.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

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

References

  • Alonso, E. (1998). How Individuals Negotiate Societies. In Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS-98, 18-25. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, E. (1999). An Individualistic Approach to Social Action in Multi-Agent Systems. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 11: 519-530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso, E. (2002). Rights for Multi-agent Systems. In d'Inverno, M., Luck, M., Fisher, M. & Preist, C. (eds.) Foundations and Applications of Multi-Agent Systems: UKMAS Workshops 1996-2000 Selected Papers, 59-72, LNAI 2403, Springer: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, N. P. (1989). An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. Macmillan: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1968). Interaction: Social Exchange. In Sills, D. L. (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C., Miceli, M. & Cesta, A. (1992). Dependence Relations among Autonomous Agents. In Werner, E. & Demazeau, Y. (eds.) Decentralized A.I. 3, 215-227. North-Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Commitments: ¿From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations.In Proceedings of The First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS-95, 41-48. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C. & Dignum, F. (1998). Autonomous Norm-acceptance. In Muller, J. P., Singh, M. P. & Rao, A. (eds.) Intelligent Agents V: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: 5th International Workshop ATAL-98, 319-333. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and Belief. Cornell University Press.

  • Jennings, N. R. (1993). Commitments and Conventions: The Foundation of Coordination in Multi-Agent Systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 8: 223-250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J. & Zlotkin, G. (1995). Multiagent Negotiation under Time Constraints. Artificial Intelligence 75: 297-345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, S., Sycara, K. & Evenchik, A. (1998). Reaching Agreements through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104: 1-69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogh, C. (1996). The Rights of Agents. InWooldridge, M. J., Muller, J. P.& Tambe, M. (eds.) Intelligent Agents II: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages: IJCAI-95 Workshop, 1-16. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levesque, H. J., Cohe, P. R. & Nunes, H. T. (1990). On Acting Together. In Dietterich, T. & Swartout, W. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-90, 94-99. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. & Shiner, R. A. (1977). New Essays on Contract Theory. Canadian Association for Publishing in Philosophy.

  • Noriega, P. & Sierra, C. (1997). Towards Layered Dialogical Agents. In Proceedings of The 12th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ECAI-96, 173-188. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, T. J., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Rights and Commitment in Multiagent Agreements. In Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS-98, 222-229. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Hare, G. M. P. & Jennings, N. R. (1996). Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence.John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. (1998a). Agents that Reason and Negotiate by Arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8: 261-292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. (1998b). Multi-context Argumentative Agents. In Proceedings of CommonSense-98, 298-349.

  • Reiner, R. (1995). Arguments Against the Possibility of Perfect Rationality. Minds and Machines 5: 373-389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenschein, J. S. & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation Among Computers. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, Y. & Tennenhlotz, M. (1992). On the Synthesis of Useful Social Laws for Arti-ficial Agents Societies. In Proceedings of The Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-92, 276-281. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sichman, J. S., Conte, R., Demazeau, Y. & Castelfranchi, C. (1994). A Social Reasoning Mechanism Based on Dependence Networks. InWooldridge, M. J. & Jennings N. R. (eds.) Intelligent Agents: ECAI-94 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, 173-177. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R., Noriega, P. & Parsons, S. (1988). A Framework for Argumentation-based Negotiation. In Singh, M. P., Rao, A. & Wooldridge, M. J. (eds.) Intelligent Agents IV: 4th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ATAL-97, 177-192. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1908). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staniford, G. (1994). Multi-agent System Design: Using Human Societal Metaphors and Normative Logic. In Wooldridge, M. J. & Jennings N. R. (eds.) Intelligent Agents: ECAI-94 Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, 289-293. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. (1998). Multiagent Systems. AI Magazine 19: 79-92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennenhlotz, M. (1998). On Stable Social Laws and Qualitative Equilibria. Artificial Intelligence 102: 1-20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A. & Wooldridge, M. (1995) Understanding the Emergence of Conventions in Multiagent Systems. In Proceedings of The First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS-95, 384-389. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, G. (1999). Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence.The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge,M. & Jennings, N. R. (1994). Towards a Theory of Cooperative Problem Solving. In Perram, J. W. & Muller, J. P. (eds.) Distributed Software Agents and Applications: 6th European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World, MAAMAW-94, 40-53. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computing, City University, London, EC1V 0HB, UK

    Eduardo Alonso

Authors
  1. Eduardo Alonso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alonso, E. Rights and Argumentation in Open Multi-Agent Systems. Artificial Intelligence Review 21, 3–24 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AIRE.0000007389.67810.17

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AIRE.0000007389.67810.17

Search

Navigation