Behaving responsible in multi-agent worlds

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Behaving responsible in multi-agent worlds

Full text

Pdf (180 KB)

Source

International Conference on Autonomous Agents archive
Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2 table of contents

Budapest, Hungary

SESSION: Agents table of contents

Pages 1139-1140

Year of Publication: 2009

ISBN:978-0-9817381-7-8

Authors

Tiago de Lima	Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Lambèr Royakkers	Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Frank Dignum	Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Sponsors

: The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents
Microsoft Research : Microsoft Research
: Whitestein Technologies
: European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
: Drexel University
: Wiley -- Blackwell Ltd

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Richland, SC

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 8, Downloads (12 Months): 19, Citation Count: 0

Additional Information:

abstract references index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

ABSTRACT

It has been proposed that a good way of allocating tasks to agents is by ascribing them obligations, i.e., if we want agent i achieves &phis;, we can stipulate that 'it is obligatory for i that &phis;'. Here, we argue that this method is not adequate to guide agent's decisions. Then, using a multi-agent extension of propositional dynamic logic, with operators expressing agents' knowledge and abilities, we show that when agents' decisions are guided by responsibilities, as we define here, a successful performance is more likely to be obtained.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Rajeev Alur , Thomas A. Henzinger , Orna Kupferman, Alternating-time temporal logic, Journal of the ACM (JACM), v.49 n.5, p.672-713, September 2002 [doi>10.1145/585265.585270]
	2	P. d'Altan, J.-J. Meyer, and R. Wieringa. An integrated framework for ought-to-be and ought-to-do constraints. Artif. Int. and Law, 4:77--111, 1996.
	3	D. Harel, D. Kozen, and J. Tiuryn. Dynamic logic. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenther, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic Volume II -- Extensions of Classical Logic, pages 497--604. D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1984.
	4	Andreas Herzig , Jérôme Lang , Dominique Longin , Thomas Polacsek, A Logic for Planning under Partial Observability, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, p.768-773, July 30-August 03, 2000
	5	J.-J. Meyer. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame J. of Formal Logic, 29(1):109--136, 1988.
	6	M. Pauly. Logic for Social Software. PhD thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, 2001.
	7	L. M. M. Royakkers. Extending Deontic Logics for the Formalisation of Legal Rules. Kluwer, 1998.
	8	W. van der Hoek and M. Wooldridge. Cooperation, knowledge, and time: Alternating-time temporal epistemic logic and its applications. Studia Logica, 75:125--157, 2003.