Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Dynamic Sanctioning for Robust and Cost-Efficient Norm Compliance

As explained by Axelrod in his seminal work An Evolutionary Approach to Norms, punishment is a key mechanism to achieve the necessary social control and to impose social norms in a self-regulated society. In this paper, we distinguish between two enforcing mechanisms. i.e. punishment and sanction, focusing on the specific ways in which they favor the emergence and maintenance of cooperation. The key research question is to find more stable and cheaper mechanisms for norm compliance in hybrid social environments (populated by humans and computational agents). To achieve this task, we have developed a normative agent able to punish and sanction defectors and to dynamically choose the right amount of punishment and sanction to impose on them (Dynamic Adaptation Heuristic). The results obtained through agent-based simulation show us that sanction is more effective and less costly than punishment in the achievement and maintenance of cooperation and it makes the population more resilient to sudden changes than if it were enforced only by mere punishment.

[1]  Joseph C. LaVoie,et al.  Type of Punishment as a Determinant of Resistance to Deviation. , 1974 .

[2]  J. Russell Developmental psychology , 1980, Nature.

[3]  Albert O. Hirschman Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating Some Categories of Economic Discourse , 1984 .

[4]  Carl A. Kallgren,et al.  A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. , 1990 .

[5]  P. Richerson,et al.  Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups , 1992 .

[6]  Carl A. Kallgren,et al.  A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: When Norms Do and Do not Affect Behavior , 2000 .

[7]  E. Fehr,et al.  Altruistic punishment in humans , 2002, Nature.

[8]  David Masclet L'analyse de l'influence de la pression des pairs dans les équipes de travail , 2003 .

[9]  C. Noussair,et al.  Combining Monetary and Social Sanctions to Promote Cooperation , 2005 .

[10]  Daniel Houser,et al.  Emotion expression in human punishment behavior. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Alberto Blanc,et al.  Designing incentives for peer-to-peer routing , 2005, Proceedings IEEE 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies..

[12]  C. Bicchieri The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms , 2005 .

[13]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Ubi Lex, Ibi Poena : Designing Norm Enforcement in E-Institutions , 2006, COIN@AAMAS/ECAI.

[14]  Carles Sierra,et al.  Friends no more: norm enforcement in multiagent systems , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[15]  Karl Sigmund,et al.  Punish or perish? Retaliation and collaboration among humans. , 2007, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[16]  Heiko Rauhut,et al.  Punishment Deters Crime Because Humans Are Bounded in Their Strategic Decision-Making , 2009, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[17]  Klaus Jaffe,et al.  Co-Operative Punishment Cements Social Cohesion , 2010, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[18]  R. Boyd,et al.  Coordinated Punishment of Defectors Sustains Cooperation and Can Proliferate When Rare , 2010, Science.

[19]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Lab Experiments for the Study of Social-Ecological Systems , 2010, Science.

[20]  Giulia Andrighetto,et al.  Norm internalization in artificial societies , 2010, AI Commun..

[21]  Attila Szolnoki,et al.  Punish, but not too hard: how costly punishment spreads in the spatial public goods game , 2010, 1007.0431.

[22]  Rosaria Conte,et al.  A cognitive model of punishment , 2010 .

[23]  Robert B. Cialdini,et al.  The focus theory of normative conduct. , 2012 .