Multiagent system research tries to obtain predictability of social systems while preserving autonomy at the level of the individual agents. In this article, social theory is called upon to propose a solution to this version of the micro-macro problem. The use of norms and learning of norms is one possible solution. An implementation of norms and normative learning is proposed and evaluated by using simulation studies and measures for the internalizing and spreading of norms. The results of the simulations provide food for thought and further research. Modeling the norm set of the group in accordance with the individual mind-set in absence of other information (i.e., at the beginning of the group-forming process) proves to be a more fruitful starting point than a random set.
Boman, M. (1999). Norms in artificial decision making. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1), 17-35.
2.
Briggs, W., & Cook, D. (1995). Flexible social laws. In T. Dean (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1995 International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 688-693). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
3.
Carley, K. M., & Gasser, L. (1999). Computational organization theory. In G. Weiss (Ed.), Multiagent systems—A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 299-330). Boston: MIT Press.
4.
Conte, R., & Castelfranchi, C. (1995). Cognitive and social action. London: University College London Press.
5.
Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C., & Dignum, F. (1999). Autonomous norm-acceptance. In J. P. Müller, M. P. Singh, & A. S. Rao (Eds.), Intelligent agents V: Agent theories, architectures, and languages (pp. 99-112). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
6.
Conte, R., Falcone, R., & Sartor, G. (1999). Introduction: agents and norms: How to fill the gap?Artificial Intelligence and Law, 7(1), 1-15.
7.
Gasser, L. (1991). Social conceptions of knowledge and action: DAI foundations and open systems semantics. Artificial Intelligence, 47(1-3), 107-138.
8.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
Gilbert, M. (1996). Living together: Rationality, sociality and obligation. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
10.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon.
11.
Mali, A. D. (1996). Social laws for agent modeling. In M. Tambe & P. Gmytrasiewicz (Eds.), Agent modeling: Papers from the AAAI Workshop (pp. 53-60). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
12.
Ossowski, S. (1999). Co-ordination in artificial agent societies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
13.
Saam, N. J., & Harrer, A. (1999). Simulating norms, social inequality, and functional change in artificial societies. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation [Online], 2(1). Available: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/2/1/2.html
14.
Shoham, Y., & Tennenholtz, M. (1992). On the synthesis of useful social laws for artificial agent societies (preliminary report). In Proceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 276-281). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.
15.
Shoham, Y., & Tennenholtz, M. (1997). On the emergence of social conventions: Modeling, analysis, and simulations. Artificial Intelligence, 94(1-2), 139-166.
16.
Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us: A philosophical study of basic social norms. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
Ullman-Margalit, E. (1977). The emergence of norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
Verhagen, H.J.E. (2000). Norm autonomous agents. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of System and Computer Sciences, the Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Sweden.
19.
Verhagen, H.J.E., & Smit, R. A. (1997). Multiagent systems as simulation tools for social theory testing. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Simulation and the Social Sciences (ICCS&SS) Siena, available as part of Verhagen, H. (1998). Agents and sociality. Unpublished philosophiae licentiate (PhL) thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
