Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Synchronous Agents, Verification, and Blame—A Deontic View

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2023 (ICTAC 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14446))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 344 Accesses

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.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    We use party and agent interchangeably throughout.

  2. 2.

    Observe similarities with synchronous and asynchronous communication.

  3. 3.

    For example, a contract \(rec X. \top ;(O_0(a) \wedge P_1(b));X\) has size 8 (note normed actions are not counted).

  4. 4.

    The missing rules essentially mirror the previous construction with the added states, and the different domains.

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, T.A., Kupferman, O.: Alternating-time temporal logic. J. ACM (JACM) 49(5), 672–713 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-726-9-23

  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). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-935-5-21

  5. Azzopardi, S., Pace, G.J., Schapachnik, F., Schneider, G.: Contract automata. Artif. Intell. Law 24(3), 203–243 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-016-9185-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broersen, J.: Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm’s scenario. In: Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.) DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11786849_7

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Chatterjee, K., Henzinger, T.A., Piterman, N.: Strategy logic. In: Caires, L., Vasconcelos, V.T. (eds.) CONCUR 2007. LNCS, vol. 4703, pp. 59–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74407-8_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Chockler, H.: Causality and responsibility for formal verification and beyond. In: CREST@ETAPS 2016. EPTCS, vol. 224, pp. 1–8 (2016). https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.224.1

  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., Halpern, J.Y.: Responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 22, 93–115 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v33i01.3301525

  12. Halpern, J.Y.: Cause, responsibility and blame: a structural-model approach. Law, Probab. Risk 14(2), 91–118 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Halpern, J.Y., Kleiman-Weiner, M.: Towards formal definitions of blameworthiness, intention, and moral responsibility. In: AAAI/IAAI/EAAI 2018. AAAI Press (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jackson, F.: On the semantics and logic of obligation. Mind 94(374), 177–195 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Lorini, E., Longin, D., Mayor, E.: A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals and collectives. J. Logic Comput. 24(6), 1313–1339 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/ext072

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80029-4

  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). https://doi.org/10.1145/860575.860609

  18. Prisacariu, C., Schneider, G.: \(\cal{CL}\): an action-based logic for reasoning about contracts. In: Ono, H., Kanazawa, M., de Queiroz, R. (eds.) WoLLIC 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5514, pp. 335–349. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02261-6_27

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Raimondi, F., Lomuscio, A.: Automatic verification of deontic properties of multi-agent systems. In: Lomuscio, A., Nute, D. (eds.) DEON 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3065, pp. 228–242. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-25927-5_15

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Shea-Blymyer, C., Abbas, H.: A deontic logic analysis of autonomous systems’ safety. In: HSCC 2020, pp. 26:1–26:11. ACM (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3365365.3382203

  21. Von Wright, G.H.: Deontic logic. Mind 60(237), 1–15 (1951)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ISP, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany

    Karam Kharraz & Martin Leucker

  2. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Shaun Azzopardi & Gerardo Schneider

Authors
  1. Karam Kharraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shaun Azzopardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerardo Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Leucker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karam Kharraz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Erika Ábrahám

  2. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Clemens Dubslaff

  3. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Silvia Lizeth Tapia Tarifa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kharraz, K., Azzopardi, S., Schneider, G., Leucker, M. (2023). Synchronous Agents, Verification, and Blame—A Deontic View. In: Ábrahám, E., Dubslaff, C., Tarifa, S.L.T. (eds) Theoretical Aspects of Computing – ICTAC 2023. ICTAC 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14446. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47963-2_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47963-2_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-47962-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-47963-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation