Synchronous Agents, Verification, and Blame—A Deontic View
Pages 332 - 350
Abstract
A question we can ask of multi-agent systems is whether the agents’ collective interaction satisfies particular goals or specifications, which can be either individual or collective. When a collaborative goal is not reached, or a specification is violated, a pertinent question is whether any agent is to blame. This paper considers a two-agent synchronous setting and a formal language to specify when agents’ collaboration is required. We take a deontic approach and use obligations, permissions, and prohibitions to capture notions of non-interference between agents. We also handle reparations, allowing violations to be corrected or compensated. We give trace semantics to our logic, and use it to define blame assignment for violations. We give an automaton construction for the logic, which we use as the base for model checking and blame analysis. We also further provide quantitative semantics that is able to compare different interactions in terms of the required reparations.
References
[1]
Abarca, A.I.R., Broersen, J.M.: A STIT logic of responsibility. In: Faliszewski, P., Mascardi, V., Pelachaud, C., Taylor, M.E. (eds.) 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2022, Auckland, New Zealand, 9-13 May 2022, pp. 1717–1719. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (IFAAMAS) (2022). https://www.ifaamas.org/Proceedings/aamas2022/pdfs/p1717.pdf
[2]
Alur R, Henzinger TA, and Kupferman O Alternating-time temporal logic J. ACM (JACM) 2002 49 5 672-713
[3]
Azzopardi, S., Gatt, A., Pace, G.J.: Reasoning about partial contracts. In: JURIX 2016. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 294, pp. 23–32. IOS Press (2016).
[4]
Azzopardi, S., Pace, G.J., Schapachnik, F.: On observing contracts: deontic contracts meet smart contracts. In: JURIX 2018. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 313, pp. 21–30. IOS Press (2018).
[5]
Azzopardi S, Pace GJ, Schapachnik F, and Schneider G Contract automata Artif. Intell. Law 2016 24 3 203-243
[6]
Broersen J Goble L and Meyer J-JC Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario Deontic Logic and Artificial Normative Systems 2006 Heidelberg Springer 53-68
[7]
Chatterjee K, Henzinger TA, and Piterman N Caires L and Vasconcelos VT Strategy logic CONCUR 2007 – Concurrency Theory 2007 Heidelberg Springer 59-73
[8]
Chockler, H.: Causality and responsibility for formal verification and beyond. In: CREST@ETAPS 2016. EPTCS, vol. 224, pp. 1–8 (2016).
[9]
Chockler, H., Halpern, J.Y.: Responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach. In: Gottlob, G., Walsh, T. (eds.) IJCAI-03, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Acapulco, Mexico, 9-15 August 2003, pp. 147–153. Morgan Kaufmann (2003). http://ijcai.org/Proceedings/03/Papers/021.pdf
[10]
Chockler H and Halpern JY Responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach J. Artif. Intell. Res. 2004 22 93-115
[11]
Friedenberg, M., Halpern, J.Y.: Blameworthiness in multi-agent settings. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence vol. 33, no. 01, pp. 525–532 (2019).
[12]
Halpern JY Cause, responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach Law, Probab. Risk 2015 14 2 91-118
[13]
Halpern, J.Y., Kleiman-Weiner, M.: Towards formal definitions of blameworthiness, intention, and moral responsibility. In: AAAI/IAAI/EAAI 2018. AAAI Press (2018)
[14]
Jackson F On the semantics and logic of obligation Mind 1985 94 374 177-195
[15]
Lorini E, Longin D, and Mayor E A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives J. Logic Comput. 2013 24 6 1313-1339
[16]
McNamara, P.: Deontic logic. In: Gabbay, D.M., Woods, J. (eds.) Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century, Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 7, pp. 197–288. Elsevier (2006).
[17]
Penczek, W., Lomuscio, A.: Verifying epistemic properties of multi-agent systems via bounded model checking. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 209–216. AAMAS 2003, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2003).
[18]
Prisacariu C and Schneider G Ono H, Kanazawa M, and de Queiroz R : an action-based logic for reasoning about contracts Logic, Language, Information and Computation 2009 Heidelberg Springer 335-349
[19]
Raimondi F and Lomuscio A Lomuscio A and Nute D Automatic verification of deontic properties of multi-agent systems Deontic Logic in Computer Science 2004 Heidelberg Springer 228-242
[20]
Shea-Blymyer, C., Abbas, H.: A deontic logic analysis of autonomous systems’ safety. In: HSCC 2020, pp. 26:1–26:11. ACM (2020).
[21]
Von Wright GH Deontic logic Mind 1951 60 237 1-15
Index Terms
- Synchronous Agents, Verification, and Blame—A Deontic View
Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.
Recommendations
Deontic and Action Logics for Organized Collective Agency, Modeled through Institutionalized Agents and Roles
Deontic Logic in Computer ScienceIn this paper we address the problem of organized collective agency, and propose a deontic/action modal logic for that purpose. We argue that once we want to attribute obligations (permissions or other deontic notions) to a set of agents, we need to ...
Deontic and Action Logics for Organized Collective Agency, Modeled through Institutionalized Agents and Roles
Deontic Logic in Computer ScienceIn this paper we address the problem of organized collective agency, and propose a deontic/action modal logic for that purpose. We argue that once we want to attribute obligations (permissions or other deontic notions) to a set of agents, we need to ...
Programming norm-aware agents
AAMAS '12: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2Normative organisations provide a means to coordinate the activities of individual agents in multiagent settings. The coordination is realized at run time by creating obligations and prohibitions (norms) for individual agents. If an agent cannot meet an ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Dec 2023
450 pages
ISBN:978-3-031-47962-5
DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-47963-2
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023.
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Berlin, Heidelberg
Publication History
Published: 04 December 2023
Qualifiers
- Article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 0Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)0
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 18 Dec 2024