Abstract
An agent intends g if it has chosen to pursue goal g an is committed to pursuing g . How do groups decide on a common goal? Social epistemology offers two views on collective attitudes: according to the summative approach, a group has attitude p if all or most of the group members have the attitude p; according to the non-summative approach, for a group to have attitude p it is required that the members together agree that they have attitude p. The summative approach is used extensively in multi-agent systems. We propose a formalization of non-summative group intentions, using social choice to determine the group goals. We use judgment aggregation as a decision-making mechanism and a multi-modal multi-agent logic to represent the collective attitudes, as well as the commitment and revision strategies for the groups intentions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arrow, K., Sen, A.K., Suzumura, K.: Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2002)
Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: The ontological properties of social roles in multi-agent systems: Definitional dependence, powers and roles playing roles. Artificial Intelligence and Law Journal (AILaw) 15(3), 201–221 (2007)
Bratman, M.E.: Shared intention. Ethics 104(1), 97–113 (1993)
Castelfranchi, C., Paglieri, F.: The role of beliefs in goal dynamics: Prolegomena to a constructive theory of intentions. Synthese 155, 237–263 (2007)
Chapman, B.: Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1(3), 337–354 (2002)
Chellas, B.F.: Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1980)
Cohen, P.R., Levesque, H.: Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence 42(2-3), 213–261 (1990)
Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Vote elicitation: Complexity and strategy-proofness. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 392–397 (2002)
Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Communication complexity of common voting rules. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 78–87 (2005)
Dietrich, F., List, C.: Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. STICERD - Political Economy and Public Policy Paper Series, (09). Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE (August 2005)
Dietrich, F., List, C.: Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 29(1), 19–33 (2007)
Dunin-Keplicz, B., Verbrugge, R.: Teamwork in Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Approach. Wiley and Sons, Chichester (July 2010)
Gilbert, M.P.: Modeling Collective Belief. Synthese 73, 185–204 (1987)
Gilbert, M.P.: Belief and acceptance as features of groups. Protosociology: An International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 16, 35–69 (2002)
Gilbert, M.P.: Acting together, joint commitment, and obligation. Philosophische Analyse/Philosophical Analysis (2007)
Gilbert, M.P.: Shared Intention and Personal Intentions. Philosophical Studies (2009)
Grosz, B., Hunsberger, L.: The dynamics of intention in collaborative activity. Cognitive Systems Research 7(2-3), 259–272 (2007)
Hakli, R.: Group beliefs and the distinction between belief and acceptance. Cognitive Systems Research 7(2-3), 286–297 (2006); Cognition, Joint Action and Collective Intentionality
Hartmann, S., Pigozzi, G., Sprenger, J.: Reliable methods of judgment aggregation. Journal of Logic and Computation (forthcoming)
Icard, T., Pacuit, E., Shoham, Y.: Joint revision of belief and intention. In: Proc.of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2010) (2010)
Jennings, N.R.: Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions. Artif. Intell. 75(2), 195–240 (1995)
Konieczny, S., Pino-Pérez, R.: Merging with integrity constraints. In: Hunter, A., Parsons, S. (eds.) ECSQARU 1999. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1638, pp. 233–244. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)
Levesque, H.J., Cohen, P.R., Nunes, J.H.T.: On acting together. In: AAAI, pp. 94–99 (1990)
List, C., Puppe, C.: Judgment aggregation: A survey. In: Anand, P., Puppe, C., Pattanaik, P. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, Oxford (2009)
Lorini, E., Longin, D.: A logical account of institutions: From acceptances to norms via legislators. In: KR, pp. 38–48 (2008)
Lorini, E., Longin, D., Gaudou, B., Herzig, A.: The logic of acceptance. Journal of Logic and Computation 19(6), 901–940 (2009)
Meijers, A.: Collective agents and cognitive agents. Protosociology. Special Issue Understanding the Social: New Perspectives from Epistemology 16, 70–86 (2002)
Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L.: A complete conclusion-based procedure for judgment aggregation. In: Rossi, F., Tsoukias, A. (eds.) ADT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5783, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)
Pnueli, A.: The temporal logic of programs. In: SFCS 1977: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pp. 46–57. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (1977)
Quinton, A.: The presidential address: Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76, 1–27+viii (1975)
Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Intentions and rational commitment. In: Proceedings of the First Pacific Rim Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI 1990), pp. 94–99 (1993)
Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P., Sonenberg, E.A.: Social plans: a preliminary report (abstract). SIGOIS Bull. 13, 10 (1992)
Roy, O.: A dynamic-epistemic hybrid logic for intentions and information changes in strategic games. Synthese 171, 291–320 (2009)
Roy, O.: Intentions and interactive transformations of decision problems. Synthese 169, 335–349 (2009)
Schild, K.: On the relationship between bdi logics and standard logics of concurrency. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 259–283 (2000)
Singh, M.P.: Group intentions. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence (IWDAI 1990) (1990)
Tuomela, R., Miller, K.: Groups beliefs. Synthese 91, 285–318 (1992)
Uckelman, J., Endriss, U.: Compactly representing utility functions using weighted goals and the max aggregator. Artif. Intell. 174, 1222–1246 (2010)
van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., Wooldridge, M.: Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese 155(2), 265–290 (2007)
Wolter, F.: Fusions of modal logics revisited. In: Kracht, M., de Rijke, M., Zakharyaschev, M. (eds.) Advances in Modal Logic 96, pp. 361–379. CSLI Lecture Notes (1998)
Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: The cooperative problem-solving process. Journal of Logic and Computation 9(4) (1999)
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Boella, G., Pigozzi, G., Slavkovik, M., van der Torre, L. (2011). Group Intention Is Social Choice with Commitment. In: De Vos, M., Fornara, N., Pitt, J.V., Vouros, G. (eds) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI. COIN 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6541. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21267-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21268-0
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)