Deductive coherence and norm adoption

This paper is a contribution to the formalisation of Thagard’s coherence theory. The term coherence is defined as the quality or the state of cohering, especially a logical, orderly, and aesthetically consistent relationship of parts. A coherent set is interdependent such that every element in it contributes to the coherence. We take Thagard’s proposal of a coherence set as that of maximising satisfaction of constraints between elements and explore its use in normative multiagent systems. In particular, we interpret coherence maximisation as a decision-making criterion for norm adoption. We first provide a general coherence framework with the necessary computing tools. Later we introduce a proof-theoretic characterisation of a particular type of coherence, namely the deductive coherence based on Thagard’s principles, and derive a mechanism to compute coherence values between elements in a deductive coherence graph. Our use of graded logic helps us to incorporate reasoning under uncertainty, which is more realistic in the context of multiagent systems. We then conduct a case study where agents deliberate about norm adoption in a multiagent system where there is competition for a common resource. We show how a coherence-maximising agent decides to violate a norm guided by its coherence.

[1]  Amalia Amaya,et al.  Formal models of coherence and legal epistemology , 2007, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[2]  Brahim Chaib-draa,et al.  The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[3]  Paul K. Moser,et al.  The Oxford handbook of epistemology , 2002 .

[4]  P. Thagard,et al.  Coherence in Thought and Action , 2000 .

[5]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  The BOID architecture: conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires , 2001, AGENTS '01.

[6]  Michael Luck,et al.  Constraining autonomy through norms , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[7]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[8]  Arnon Avron,et al.  Simple Consequence Relations , 1988, Inf. Comput..

[9]  Rosaria Conte,et al.  Emergent (info)institutions , 2001, Cognitive Systems Research.

[10]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[11]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Deliberative Normative Agents: Principles and Architecture , 1999, ATAL.

[12]  Lluis Godo,et al.  Graded BDI Models for Agent Architectures , 2004, CLIMA.

[13]  Roberto Scazzieri Giunchiglia Contextual Reasoning , 2010 .

[14]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Autonomous Norm Acceptance , 1998, ATAL.

[15]  M. Sintonen Knowledge and Inquiry , 1997 .

[16]  Paul Piwek,et al.  Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-theoretic Investigation , 2007, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[17]  Guido Boella,et al.  Introduction to normative multiagent systems , 2006, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[18]  Guido Boella,et al.  Fulfilling or violating obligations in normative multiagent systems , 2004 .

[19]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Choosing social laws for multi-agent systems: Minimality and simplicity , 2000, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice , 1995, ICMAS.

[21]  Stephen P. Boyd,et al.  Semidefinite Programming , 1996, SIAM Rev..

[22]  Martin J. Kollingbaum,et al.  Norm adoption in the NoA agent architecture , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[23]  Petr Hájek,et al.  Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic , 1998, Trends in Logic.

[24]  Simon Parsons,et al.  Modelling dialogues using argumentation , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[25]  Carles Sierra,et al.  A methodology to engineer graded BDI agents , 2006 .

[26]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Multilanguage hierarchical logics (or: how we can do without modal logics) , 1994, CNKBS.

[27]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[28]  Lluis Godo,et al.  Introducing Grades in Deontic Logics , 2008, DEON.

[29]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  Coherence in finite argument systems , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[30]  Fausto Giunchiglia,et al.  Contextual Reasoning , 1998, ECAI.

[31]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  Artificial Social Systems , 1992, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[32]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  On Social Laws for Arti cial AgentSocieties : OLine Design , 1995 .

[33]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[34]  Jean-Paul Sansonnet,et al.  Model for Dialogue between Informational Agents , 2003, EPIA.

[35]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Reasoning about rational agents , 2000, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.