Softening electronic institutions to support natural interaction

Dave Murray-Rust, Petros Papapanagiotou, Dave Robertson

Abstract


A necessary feature of social networks is a model of interaction which is followed on the network---some structure which coordinates activity between the participants. These interaction models are typically implicit, making it a challenge to both design and communicate the protocols for interaction and coordination. Electronic institution systems are one of the principal ways in which multi-agent systems engineers address this issue of coordination in complex interactions between groups of agents. In electronic institutions, interaction models can be concisely specified as protocols which encode the norms which computational agents follow. However, the formality and the up-front costs of discovering and choosing to engage with these systems has limited their applicability to human interaction. The vast majority of human (and, increasingly, automated) social interaction is now taking place in social media systems where social norms are softer concepts regulated essentially by the people involved. Being able to leverage the power of electronic institutions in these systems would ease the application of computational intelligence in support of social tasks.

We describe a method by which electronic institutions can act in synergy with these sorts of social media streams and, in doing so, we define a ``softer'' style of system that, nevertheless, retains connection to precise specifications of coordination. In addition, we question the tacit assumption that participating agents deliberately join appropriate institutions. Although our method is independent of choice of social media stream (given a few standard characteristics of these) we describe an implementation of the method using Twitter as a target media stream.

We illustrate the utility of our approach with an example which benefits from computational coordination, but where the use of a traditional EI would have prohibitive up-front costs. As well as a trace of a synthetic version, we demonstrate the functioning of a complete implementation which can run the example, and discuss how minimal the end-user configuration to setup complex examples can be.

 

 


Keywords


Social machines; electronic institutions; human computer interaction; process calculus

Full Text:

PDF

References


Ahmad, S, Battle, A, Malkani, Z, and Kamvar, S. (2011). The jabberwocky programming environment for structured social computing. Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST ’11 (2011), 53. DOI:http: //dx.doi.org/10.1145/2047196.2047203

Aldewereld, H, Dignum, F, García-Camino, A, Noriega, P, Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A, and Sierra, C. (2007). Operationalisation of norms for electronic institutions. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II. Springer, 163–176.

Alexander, C. (1975). The Oregon Experiment. Vol. 3. Oxford University Press.

Aranda, G, Trescak, T, Esteva, M, and Carrascosa, C. (2011). Building quests for online games with virtual institutions. In Agents for

games and simulations II. Springer, 192–206.

Aranda, G, Trescak, T, Esteva, M, Rodriguez, I, and Carrascosa, C. (2012). Massively multiplayer online games developed with agents.

In Transactions on Edutainment VII. Springer, 129–138.

Artikis, A and Pitt, J. (2009). Specifying open agent systems: A survey. Engineering Societies in the Agents World IX (2009), 29–45.

Baldoni, M, Baroglio, C, Bergenti, F, Marengo, E, Mascardi, V, Patti, V, Ricci, A, and Santi, A. (2011). An Interaction-Oriented Agent Framework for Open Environments. In AI*IA. 68–79.

Baldoni, M, Baroglio, C, Marengo, E, and Patti, V. (2013). Constitutive and regulative specifications of commitment protocols. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 4, 2 (March 2013), 1–25.

Barkhuus, L and Polichar, V. E. (2010). Empowerment through seamfulness: smart phones in everyday life. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 15, 6 (Dec. 2010), 629–639. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00779-010-0342-4

Bernstein, A, Klein, M, and Malone, T. W. (2012). Programming the global brain. Commun. ACM 55, 5 (May 2012), 41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2160718.2160731

Bogdanovych, A. (2007). Virtual Institutions. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Technology, Sydney.

Bogdanovych, A, Berger, H, Simoff, S, and Sierra, C. (2005). Narrowing the gap between humans and agents in e-commerce: 3D

electronic institutions. In E-Commerce and Web Technologies. Springer, 128–137.

Boyd, D, Golder, S, and Lotan, G. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In International

Conference on System Sciences. Ieee, 1–10. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412

Brambilla, M, Fraternali, P, and Vaca, C. (2012). BPMN and Design Patterns for Engineering Social BPM Solutions. In Business Process Management Workshops, Florian Daniel, Kamel Barkaoui, and Schahram Dustdar (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 99. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 219–230.

Bruns, A and Burgess, J. E. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference. Reykjavik, Iceland.

Caire, P. (2009). Designing convivial digital cities: a social intelligence design approach. AI & Society 24, 1 (Feb. 2009), 97–114. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00146- 009- 0201- x

Campos, J, López-Sánchez, M, and Esteva, M. (2009). Coordination support in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of The 8th Interna- tional Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 2. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1301–1302.

Castelfranchi, C and Piunti, M. (2012). AmI Systems as Agent-Based Mirror Worlds: Bridging Humans and Agents through Stigmergy. In Agents and Ambient Intelligence: Achievements and Challenges in the Intersection of Agent Technology and Ambient Intelligence, Tibor Bosse (Ed.). Ios Press.

Cherry, C. (1973). Regulative Rules and Constitutive Rules. Philosophical Quarterly 23, 93 (1973), 301–315.

Chesñevar, C and Maguitman, A. (2013). E 2 participation: electronically empowering citizens for social innovation through agreement

technologies. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. ACM, 279—-280. Dignum, F. (2002). Abstract Norms and Electronic Institutions. In Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems: Theories and Applications

(RASTA’02). 93 —- 104.

D’Inverno, M, Luck, M, Noriega, P, Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. a, and Sierra, C. (2012). Communicating open systems. Artificial Intelligence

(July 2012), 38–94. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2012.03.004

Esteva, M. (2003). Electronic Institutions: from specification to development. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technical University of Catalonia.

Esteva, M, De La Cruz, D, and Sierra, C. (2002). ISLANDER: an electronic institutions editor. In Autonomous agents and multiagent systems. ACM, 1045–1052.

Esteva, M and Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. (2011). Socially-aware lightweight coordination infrastructures. Agent-Oriented Software Engi- neering (AOSE 2011) (2011), 117–128.

Esteva, M, Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.-A. J, Sierra, C, Garcia, P, and Arcos, J. L. (2001). On the formal specification of electronic institutions. In Agent mediated electronic commerce. Springer, 126–147.

Franklin, M. J, Kossmann, D, Kraska, T, Ramesh, S, and Xin, R. (2011). CrowdDB: answering queries with crowdsourcing. In Pro- ceedings of the 2011 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of data. ACM, 61—-72.

García-Camino, A, Noriega, P, and Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A. (2005). Implementing norms in electronic institutions. In Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems. ACM, 667–673.

Gelernter, D. H. (1991). Mirror worlds, or, The day software puts the universe in a shoebox–: how it will happen and what it will mean. Oxford University Press New York.

Goldin, D. Q, Smolka, S. A, Attie, P. C, and Sonderegger, E. L. (2004). Turing machines, transition systems, and interaction. Information and Computation 194, 2 (2004), 101–128.

Honeycutt, C and Herring, S. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. In International Conference on System Sciences. 1–10.

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. Harper & Row.

Jonge, D. D, Rosell, B, and Sierra, C. (2013). Human interactions in electronic institutions. In Agreement Technologies. Springer,

—-89.

Lamizet, B. (2004). Culture - commonness of the common? Trans, Internet journal for cultural sciences 1 (2004), 15.

Liu, J. Interactions: The Numbers Behind #ICanHazPDF. http://www.altmetric.com/blog/interactions-the-numbers-behind-icanhazpdf/. (????).

Luck, M, Mahmoud, S, Meneguzzi, F, Kollingbaum, M, Norman, T. J, Criado, N, and Fagundes, M. S. (2013). Normative agents. In Agreement Technologies. Springer, 209–220.

Malone, T. W, Laubacher, R, and Dellarocas, C. (2009). Harnessing Crowds : Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence. (2009).

Malone, T. W, Laubacher, R, and Dellarocas, C. (2010). The Collective Intelligence Genome. MIT Sloan Management Review 51, 3 (2010), 21–31.

Myhill, C. (2004). Commercial success by looking for desire lines. In Computer Human Interaction. Springer, 293–304. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

OASIS, . (2007). Web Services Business Process Execution Language, version 2.0, OASIS Standard. (2007).

Object Management Group, . (2011). Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), version 2.0. (2011).

Omicini, A, Ricci, A, and Viroli, M. (2006). Agens Faber: Toward a Theory of Artefacts for MAS. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 150, 3 (May 2006), 21–36. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.entcs.2006.03.003

Omicini, A, Ricci, A, and Viroli, M. (2008). Artifacts in the A&A meta-model for multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and

Multi-Agent Systems (2008).

Osman, N, Robertson, D, and Walton, C. (2006). Run-time model checking of interaction and deontic models for multi-agent systems.

In Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2006), Hakodate, Japan, May 8-12, 2006. 238–240.

Parikh, R. (2002). Social software. Synthese 132 (2002), 187–211.

Risman, P. (2009). Pear Analytics: Twitter Study. http://www.scribd.com/doc/18548460/Pear-Analytics-Twitter-Study-August-2009. (2009).

Ritter, A, Cherry, C, and Dolan, B. (2010). Unsupervised Modeling of Twitter Conversations. In Human Language Technologies. 172–180.

Robertson, D. (2004). Multi-agent coordination as distributed logic programming. In ICLP 2004, LNCS 3132, B. Demoen and V. Lifs- chitz (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, 416–430.

Robertson, D. (2012). Lightweight coordination calculus for agent systems: retrospective and prospective. In Declarative Agent Lan- guages and Technologies 2011, LNAI 7169. Springer, 84–89.

Robertson, D, Barker, A, and Besana, P. (2008). Models of interaction as a grounding for peer to peer knowledge sharing. In Advances in Web Semantics I, LNCS 4891. 81–129. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89784-2_4

Ross, J. W, Weill, P, and Robertson, D. C. (2006). Enterprise architecture as strategy: Creating a foundation for business execution. Harvard Business Press.

Roure, D. D, Goble, C, Aleksejevs, S, Bechhofer, S, Bhagat, J, Cruickshank, D, Fisher, P, Kollara, N, Michaelides, D, Missier, P, and others, . (2010). The evolution of myexperiment. In e-Science (e-Science), 2010 IEEE Sixth International Conference on. IEEE, 153–160.

Savarimuthu, B. T. R and Cranefield, S. (2009). A categorization of simulation works on norms. In Normative Multi-Agent Systems (Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings), Guido Boella, Pablo Noriega, Gabriella Pigozzi, and Harko Verhagen (Eds.). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Germany, Dagstuhl, Germany.

Schall, D, Satzger, B, and Psaier, H. (2012). Crowdsourcing tasks to social networks in BPEL4People. World Wide Web (Aug. 2012). DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11280- 012- 0180- 6

Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. Simon and Schuster.

Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an institution? Journal of Institutional Economics 1, 1 (June 2005), 1–22. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/

S1744137405000020

Siebes, R, Dupplaw, D, Kotoulas, S, Pinninck, A. P. D, Harmelen, F. V, and Robertson, D. (2007). The OpenKnowledge System : An Interaction-Centered Approach to Knowledge Sharing. In On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2007: CoopIS, DOA, ODBASE, GADA, and IS. 381–390.

Sierra, C, Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A, Noriega, P, Esteva, M, and Arcos, J. L. (2004). Engineering multi-agent systems as electronic institutions. European Journal for the Informatics Professional 4, 4 (2004), 33–39.

Trescak, T, Rodriguez, I, Lopez Sanchez, M, and Almajano, P. (2013). Execution infrastructure for normative virtual environments. Engineering applications of artificial intelligence 26, 1 (2013), 51–62.

van Kleek, M, Smith, D, Shadbolt, N, and Schraefel, M. (2012). A decentralized architecture for consolidating personal information ecosystems: The WebBox. In PIM 2012.

van Leeuwen, J and Wiedermann, J. (2006). A theory of interactive computation. In Interactive computation. Springer, 119–142. Walther, J. B, Carr, C. T, Choi, S. S. W, DeAndrea, D. C, Kim, J, Tong, S. T, and Van Der Heide, B. (2010). Interaction of interpersonal,

peer, and media influence sources online. A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites 17 (2010).

Williams, S. (1967). Business process modeling improves administrative control. Automation (December 1967), 44–50.

Wu, S, Hofman, J. M, Mason, W. A, and Watts, D. J. (2011). Who says what to whom on twitter. In World Wide Web 2011. ACM, 705–714.

Zhang, H, Monroy-Hernández, A, and Shaw, A. (2014). WeDo: End-To-End Computer Supported Collective Action. In AAAI Confer- ence on Weblogs and Social Media. 639–642.

Zhang, R, Li, W, Gao, D, and Ouyang, Y. (2013). Automatic Twitter Topic Summarization With Speech Acts. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AUDIO, SPEECH, AND LANGUAGE PROCESSING 21, 3 (2013), 649–658.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.