Skip to main content

Reasoning About Collective Action in Markov Logic: A Case Study from Classical Athens

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 237 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13549))

Abstract

Solving the collective action problem is to understand how people decide to act together for the common good when individual rationality would lead to non-cooperative selfish behaviour. Two important features that can foster collective action are achieving common knowledge about the problem faced and the existence of a shared cooperative ethos. Based on the work of Ober, who argued that the success of classical Athens was the result of its shared commitments, social values and specific procedural rules, we define a probabilistic model in Markov Logic of a specific prosecution against an Athenian trader who neglected to contribute to the city when it was in a crisis. In order to join together for a common good, our model focuses on a decision-making approach based on reasoning about common knowledge. For example, knowledge about the ethos of the court towards convicting traitors can be seen as common knowledge gained from public monuments recording these verdicts. We expect that our computational model of this case study can be generalised to other problems of reasoning about collective action based on common knowledge in future work.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   69.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    We do not attempt to model any reasoning about whether a citizen prosecuted for treachery really is guilty. Instead we focus on the argument for conviction (assuming guilt) based on the upholding of social order. In fact, in the real scenario, Leocrates was not convicted, as evidence of his guilt was not convincing to the court.

  2. 2.

    https://github.com/opcode81/ProbCog.

  3. 3.

    MLN inference does not scale well [23], so explicitly modelling a large number of citizens is not feasible.

  4. 4.

    According to Toumela [24] there is a mutual belief that, if a group has set of ethoses, all its members are collectively committed and accepted to that ethoses. Essentially this is common knowledge.

  5. 5.

    Due to difficulties in expressing conditional probabilities in MLN clauses [6], this knowledge is expressed in terms of joint probabilities of cooperation and holding a certain ethos.

  6. 6.

    ProbCog provides an “exist” operator but not a “for all” one.

References

  1. Allen, D.S.: Changing the authoritative voice: Lycurgus “against Leocrates’’. Class. Antiq. 19(1), 5–33 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumgartner, P., Fuchs, A., de Nivelle, H., Tinelli, C.: Computing finite models by reduction to function-free clause logic. J. Appl. Logic 7(1), 58–74 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Burtt, J.O. (ed.): Minor attic orators. 2: Lycurgus. Dinarchus. Demades. Hyperides/with an English transl. by J. O. Burtt. No. 395 in The Loeb classical library, [u.a.] Heinemann, London, reprint edn. (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chwe, M.S.Y.: Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Domingos, P., Kok, S., Lowd, D., Poon, H., Richardson, M., Singla, P.: Markov logic. In: De Raedt, L., Frasconi, P., Kersting, K., Muggleton, S. (eds.) Probabilistic Inductive Logic Programming. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4911, pp. 92–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78652-8_4

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Jain, D.: Knowledge engineering with Markov logic networks: a review. Evol. Knowl. Theory Appl. 16, 50–75 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Friedman, N., Getoor, L., Koller, D., Pfeffer, A.: Learning probabilistic relational models. IJCAI 99, 1300–1309 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons. J. Nat. Res. Policy Res. 1(3), 243–253 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Holt, C.A., Roth, A.E.: The Nash equilibrium: a perspective. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101(12), 3999–4002 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Holzinger, K.: The Problems of Collective Action: A New Approach. SSRN 399140 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kersting, K., De Raedt, L.: Towards combining inductive logic programming with Bayesian networks. In: Rouveirol, C., Sebag, M. (eds.) ILP 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2157, pp. 118–131. Springer, Heidelberg (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44797-0_10

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuhlman, C.J., Ravi, S.S., Korkmaz, G., Vega-Redondo, F.: An agent-based model of common knowledge and collective action dynamics on social networks. In: 2020 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 218–229 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lewis, D.: Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Leyton-Brown, K., Shoham, Y.: Essentials of game theory: a concise multidisciplinary introduction. Synth. Lect. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. 2(1), 1–88 (2008)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Neville, J., Jensen, D.: Dependency networks for relational data. In: Fourth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2004), pp. 170–177. IEEE (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ober, J.: Democracy and Knowledge: Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008). oCLC: ocn202545162

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ostrom, E.: Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. The political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Reuben, E.: The evolution of theories of collective action. Ph.D. thesis, Tinbergen Institute (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sandler, T.: Collective Action: Theory and Applications. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Shteynberg, G.: Shared attention. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10(5), 579–590 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shteynberg, G., Hirsh, J.B., Bentley, R.A., Garthoff, J.: Shared worlds and shared minds: a theory of collective learning and a psychology of common knowledge. Psychol. Rev. 127(5), 918 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Srivathsan, S., Cranefield, S., Pitt, J.: A bayesian model of information cascades. In: Theodorou, A., Nieves, J.C., De Vos, M. (eds.) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XIV. COINE 2021. LNCS, vol. 13239. Springer, Cham. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16617-4_7

  23. Sun, Z., Zhao, Y., Wei, Z., Zhang, W., Wang, J.: Scalable learning and inference in Markov logic networks. Int. J. Approx. Reas. 82(C), 39–55 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.12.003

  24. Tuomela, R.: The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Wohl, V.: Rhetoric of the Athenian Citizen, pp. 162–177. Cambridge Companions to Literature, Cambridge University Press (2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521860543.011

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Marsden Fund Council from New Zealand Government funding, managed by Royal Society Te Apārangi.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sriashalya Srivathsan or Stephen Cranefield .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 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

Srivathsan, S., Cranefield, S., Pitt, J. (2022). Reasoning About Collective Action in Markov Logic: A Case Study from Classical Athens. In: Ajmeri, N., Morris Martin, A., Savarimuthu, B.T.R. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, Norms, and Ethics for Governance of Multi-Agent Systems XV. COINE 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13549. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20845-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20845-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20844-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20845-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics