Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agents and Expectations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX (COIN 2013)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 8386))

Abstract

This paper discusses the role that expectations have in agent reasoning, and focuses on the author’s previous work on modelling and monitoring expectations with a complex temporal structure, and its application to expectation monitoring in virtual worlds. It also presents a proposal for a new extension of this work by integrating it with the event calculus to simplify the definition of institutions with actions that create expectations. It is shown how this “expectation event calculus” could provide a uniform basis for reasoning about various types of expectation, and commitments and norms in particular.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874

  2. 2.

    This paper includes some minor modifications to the syntax introduced by Cranefield et al. [16].

  3. 3.

    This is a simplified form of an operator defined by Eisner et al. [19].

  4. 4.

    http://secondlife.com

  5. 5.

    http://secondfootball.com

  6. 6.

    http://esper.codehaus.org

  7. 7.

    The event calculus was originally developed by Kowalski and Sergot [23], but the discussion in this section is based on a later version presented by Shanahan [39].

  8. 8.

    There are minor differences in the syntax used in Figs. 3 and 5, the most significant being that Fig. 3 uses a variant of the EC in which fluents can take non-Boolean values.

  9. 9.

    Using real-time deadlines would require using a logic of expectations based on a metric temporal logic, such as that used in Fig. 1. However, the approach proposed here still has benefits if a simpler logic of expectations is used.

  10. 10.

    A propositional naming convention can be used to encode this if a propositional expectation logic is used in the monitor.

  11. 11.

    © the authors [7]. Licence: CC-BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

References

  1. Ågotnes, T., van der Hoek, W., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: On the logic of normative systems. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1175–1180. AAAI Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alberti, M., Gavanelli, M., Lamma, E., Chesani, F., Mello, P., Torroni, P.: Compliance verification of agent interaction: a logic-based software tool. Appl. Artif. Intell. 20(2), 133–157 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alrawagfeh, W.: Norm representation and reasoning: a formalization in event calculus. In: Boella, G., Elkind, E., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Dignum, F., Purvis, M.K. (eds.) PRIMA 2013. LNCS, vol. 8291, pp. 5–20. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  4. Artikis, A., Sergot, M.: Executable specification of open multi-agent systems. Logic J. IGPL 18(1), 31–65 (2010)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Bacchus, F., Kabanza, F.: Using temporal logics to express search control knowledge for planning. Artif. Intell. 116(1–2), 123–191 (2000)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Blyth, P., Loke, S.K., Swan, J.: Otago Virtual Hospital: medical students learning to notice clinically salient features. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Ascilite Conference, pp. 108–112. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Broersen, J., Cranefield, S., Elrakaiby, Y., Gabbay, D., Grossi, D., Lorini, E., Parent, X., van der Torre, L.W.N., Tummolini, L., Turrini, P., Schwarzentruber, F.: Normative reasoning and consequence. In: Andrighetto, G., Governatori, G., Noriega, P., van der Torre, L.W.N. (eds.) Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, vol. 4, pp. 33–70. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl (2013). http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2013/399

    Google Scholar 

  8. Castelfranchi, C., Giardini, F., Lorini, E., Tummolini, L.: The prescriptive destiny of predictive attitudes: from expectations to norms via conventions. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 222–227 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Castelfranchi, C.: Mind as an anticipatory device: for a theory of expectations. In: De Gregorio, M., Di Maio, V., Frucci, M., Musio, C. (eds.) BVAI 2005. LNCS, vol. 3704, pp. 258–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Chesani, F., Mello, P., Montali, M., Torroni, P.: Commitment tracking via the reactive event calculus. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 91–96. Morgan Kaufmann (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cliffe, O., De Vos, M., Padget, J.: Modelling normative frameworks using answer set programing. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 548–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Cranefield, S.: A rule language for modelling and monitoring social expectations in multi-agent systems. In: Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J.S., Vázquez-Salceda, J. (eds.) ANIREM and OOOP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3913, pp. 246–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Cranefield, S.: Modelling and monitoring social expectations in multi-agent systems. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006 Workshops. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 308–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Cranefield, S., Li, G.: Monitoring social expectations in second life. In: Padget, J., Artikis, A., Vasconcelos, W., Stathis, K., da Silva, V.T., Matson, E., Polleres, A. (eds.) COIN 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6069, pp. 133–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M.: Verifying social expectations by model checking truncated paths. J. Logic Comput. 21(6), 1217–1256 (2011)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Cranefield, S., Winikoff, M., Vasconcelos, W.: Modelling and monitoring interdependent expectations. In: Cranefield, S., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Noriega, P. (eds.) COIN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7254, pp. 149–166. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Criado, N., Argente, E., Botti, V.: Normative deliberation in graded BDI agents. In: Dix, J., Witteveen, C. (eds.) MATES 2010. LNCS, vol. 6251, pp. 52–63. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. van Ditmarsch, H., Ghosh, S., Verbrugge, R., Wang, Y.: Hidden protocols: modifying our expectations in an evolving world. Artif. Intell. 208, 18–40 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Eisner, C., Fisman, D., Havlicek, J., Lustig, Y., McIsaac, A., Van Campenhout, D.: Reasoning with temporal logic on truncated paths. In: Hunt Jr, W.A., Somenzi, F. (eds.) CAV 2003. LNCS, vol. 2725, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Farrell, A.D.H., Sergot, M.J., Sallé, M., Bartolini, C.: Using the event calculus for tracking the normative state of contracts. Int. J. Coop. Inf. Syst. 14(2 & 3), 99–129 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gärdenfors, P.: The role of expectations in reasoning. In: Masuch, M., Pólos, L. (eds.) Knowledge Representation and Reasoning Under Uncertainty. LNCS, vol. 808, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: Norm adoption in the NoA agent architecture. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1038–1039. ACM (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener. Comput. 4, 67–95 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Markey, N., Schnoebelen, P.: Model checking a path. In: Amadio, R.M., Lugiez, D. (eds.) CONCUR 2003. LNCS, vol. 2761, pp. 251–265. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Meneguzzi, F., Luck, M.: Norm-based behaviour modification in BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 177–184. IFAAMAS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Morales, J., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Wooldridge, M., Vasconcelos, W.: Automated synthesis of normative systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp. 483–490. IFAAMAS (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nickles, M., Rovatsos, M., Weiss, G.: Expectation-oriented modeling. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 18, 891–918 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Oren, N., Vasconcelos, W., Meneguzzi, F., Luck, M.: Acting on norm constrained plans. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P., Ågotnes, T., Boella, G., van der Torre, L. (eds.) CLIMA XII 2011. LNCS, vol. 6814, pp. 347–363. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Panagiotidi, S., Vázquez-Salceda, J.: Towards practical normative agents: a framework and an implementation for norm-aware planning. In: Cranefield, S., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Noriega, P. (eds.) COIN 2011. LNCS, vol. 7254, pp. 93–109. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Pitt, J., Schaumeier, J., Artikis, A.: Axiomatization of socio-economic principles for self-organizing institutions: concepts, experiments and challenges. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 7(4), 39:1–39:39 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Piunti, M., Castelfranchi, C., Falcone, R.: Surprise as shortcut for anticipation: clustering mental states in reasoning. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 507–512 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ranathunga, S.: Improving awareness of intelligent virtual agents. Ph.D. thesis, University of Otago (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ranathunga, S., Cranefield, S.: Improving situation awareness in intelligent virtual agents. In: Dignum, F., Brom, C., Hindriks, K., Beer, M., Richards, D. (eds.) CAVE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7764, pp. 134–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Ranathunga, S., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: Identifying events taking place in Second Life virtual environments. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26(1–2), 137–181 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ranathunga, S., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M.: Integrating expectation monitoring into BDI agents. In: Dennis, L., Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H. (eds.) ProMAS 2011. LNCS, vol. 7217, pp. 74–91. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M., Purvis, M.K.: Obligation norm identification in agent societies. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 13(4), 3 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Cranefield, S., Purvis, M., Purvis, M.K.: Identifying prohibition norms in agent societies. Artif. Intell. Law 21(1), 1–46 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shanahan, M.: The Event Calculus Explained. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1600, pp. 409–430. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Urovi, V., Bromuri, S., Stathis, K., Artikis, A.: Initial steps towards run-time support for norm-governed systems. In: De Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds.) COIN 2010. LNCS, vol. 6541, pp. 268–284. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Veksler, V.D.: Second Life as a simulation environment: rich, high-fidelity world, minus the hassles. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, pp. 420–425 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: Communication languages for multiagent systems. Comput. Intell. 25(2), 136–159 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Viganò, F., Colombetti, M.: Symbolic model checking of institutions. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 35–44. ACM Press (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vo, Q.B., Li, M.: On the role of expectations in multi-agent reasoning and decision making. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, vol. 2, pp. 162–169. IEEE (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wallace, I., Rovatsos, M.: Bounded practical social reasoning in the ESB framework. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1097–1104. IFAAMAS (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Weitnauer, E., Thomas, N.M., Rabe, F., Kopp, S.: Intelligent agents living in social virtual environments – bringing Max into Second Life. In: Prendinger, H., Lester, J.C., Ishizuka, M. (eds.) IVA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5208, pp. 552–553. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Westra, J., van Hasselt, H., Dignum, F., Dignum, V.: Adaptive serious games using agent organizations. In: Dignum, F., Bradshaw, J., Silverman, B., van Doesburg, W. (eds.) Agents for Games and Simulations. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5920, pp. 206–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Winikoff, M., Cranefield, S.: Eliciting expectations for monitoring social interactions. In: Purvis, M., Savarimuthu, B.T.R. (eds.) ICCMSN 2008. LNCS, vol. 5322, pp. 171–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Yolum, P., Singh, M.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: an approach for specifying and executing protocols. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 42, 227–253 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

    Stephen Cranefield

Authors
  1. Stephen Cranefield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Cranefield .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom

    Tina Balke

  2. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Frank Dignum

  3. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    M. Birna van Riemsdijk

  4. Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom

    Amit K. Chopra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Cranefield, S. (2014). Agents and Expectations. In: Balke, T., Dignum, F., van Riemsdijk, M., Chopra, A. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems IX. COIN 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 8386. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07313-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07314-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation