Dynamic Specifications in Norm-Governed Open Computational Societies

A defining characteristic of Open Computational Societies is the unpredictable behaviour of their participants, resulting from their operational and architectural heterogeneity. This has led to the development of computational frameworks that facilitate the declaration of agent specifications in terms of normative relations. The frameworks offer modelling, simulation and validation, but typically have not supported dynamic modification of the specification at runtime by the agents themselves. This omission can be a limitation in certain scenarios, where agents might be capable of adaptation when faced with unexpected stimuli, but the specifications under which they operate did not allow for it. In this paper we extend an existing normative computational framework to facilitate well-defined dynamic normative modification of a specification by the agents themselves, given a well-defined meta-specification. We complement the framework with a mathematical model of the 'specification space'. We argue that the introduced dynamism preserves several of the advantages of static normative frameworks while allowing for more flexible, highly autonomous systems, simpler specification authoring and generic protocol reuse.

[1]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Designing organizations for computational agents , 1998 .

[2]  Jeffrey M. Bradshaw,et al.  KAoS: toward an industrial-strength open agent architecture , 1997 .

[3]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Software agents , 1994, CACM.

[4]  Gary J. Nutt,et al.  Open Systems , 2019 .

[5]  K. Suzanne Barber,et al.  Adaptive decision-making frameworks for dynamic multi-agent organizational change , 2006, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[6]  Giovanni Sartor,et al.  Time and norms: a formalisation in the event-calculus , 1999, ICAIL '99.

[7]  Andrea Omicini,et al.  Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies III , 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[8]  Michael Luck,et al.  Towards a Model of the Dynamics of Normative Multi-Agent Systems , 2002 .

[9]  Marek Sergot,et al.  On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective , 1994 .

[10]  Gerhard Brewka,et al.  Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus , 2001, J. Log. Comput..

[11]  José Carmo,et al.  A deontic logic representation of contractual obligations , 1994 .

[12]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[13]  Michael L. Brodie On conceptual modelling - perspectives from artificial intelligence, databases and programming languages , 1984, Topics in information systems.

[14]  Guido Boella,et al.  Permissions and obligations in hierarchical normative systems , 2003, ICAIL.

[15]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  The Dynamic Selection of Coordination Mechanisms , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[16]  Brett Benyo,et al.  Representation and reasoning for DAML-based policy and domain services in KAoS and nomads , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[17]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  A Protocol for Resource Sharing in Norm-Governed Ad Hoc Networks , 2004, DALT.

[18]  Frank Dignum,et al.  From Abstract to Concrete Norms in Agent Institutions , 2004, FAABS.

[19]  Christopher A. Rouff,et al.  Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems , 2001, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[20]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Voting in online deliberative assemblies , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[21]  Keith S. Decker,et al.  Organizational self-design in semi-dynamic environments , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[22]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  An executable specification of an argumentation protocol , 2003, ICAIL.