Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Manipulating convention emergence using influencer agents

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Coordination in open multi-agent systems (MAS) can reduce costs to agents associated with conflicting goals and actions, allowing artificial societies to attain higher levels of aggregate utility. Techniques for increasing coordination typically involve incorporating notions of conventions, namely socially adopted standards of behaviour, at either an agent or system level. As system designers cannot necessarily create high quality conventions a priori, we require an understanding of how agents can dynamically generate, adopt and adapt conventions during their normal interaction processes. Many open MAS domains, such as peer-to-peer and mobile ad-hoc networks, exhibit properties that restrict the application of the mechanisms that are often used, especially those requiring the incorporation of additional components at an agent or society level. In this paper, we use Influencer Agents (IAs) to manipulate convention emergence, which we define as agents with strategies and goals chosen to aid the emergence of high quality conventions in domains characterised by heterogeneous ownership and uniform levels of agent authority. Using the language coordination problem (Steels in Artif Life 2(3):319–392, 1995), we evaluate the effect of IAs on convention emergence in a population. We show that relatively low proportions of IAs can (i) effectively manipulate the emergence of high-quality conventions, and (ii) increase convention adoption and quality. We make no assumptions involving agent mechanism design or internal architecture beyond the usual assumption of rationality. Our results demonstrate the fragility of convention emergence in the presence of malicious or faulty agents that attempt to propagate low quality conventions, and confirm the importance of social network structure in convention adoption.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albert R., Barabási A. L. (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics 74: 47–97

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Agotnes T., Vander Hoek W., Wooldridge M. (2009) Robust normative systems and a logic of norm compliance. Logic Journal of IGPL 18(1): 4–30. doi:10.1093/jigpal/jzp070.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Arthur W. (1994) Inductive reasoning and bounded rationality. The American Economic Review 84(2): 406–411

    Google Scholar 

  4. Axelrod R. (1986) An evolutionary approach to norms. The American Political Science Review 80(4): 1095–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barabási A. L., Albert R. (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439): 509

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Boman M. (1999) Norms in artificial decision making. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7(1): 17–35

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, W., Wang, Y., & Yang, S. (2009). Efficient influence maximization in social networks. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 199–208).

  8. Dellarocas, C., & Klein, M. (1999). Civil agent societies: Tools for inventing open agent-mediated electronic marketplaces. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on electronic commerce (pp. 24–39).

  9. Eppstein, D., & Wang, J. (2002). A steady state model for graph power laws. In 2nd international workshop on web dynamics.

  10. Galan J., Izquierdo L. (2005) Appearances can be deceiving: Lessons learned re-implementing Axelrod’s evolutionary approach to norms. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 8(3): 108–111

    Google Scholar 

  11. Garlick, M., & Chli, M. (2009). The effect of social influence and curfews on civil violence. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 1335–1336).

  12. Gonzalez M., Lind P., Hermann H. (2006) Networks based on collisions between mobile agents. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 224(2–4): 137–148

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Griffiths, N., & Luck, M. (2010). Changing neighbours: Improving tag-based cooperation. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 249–256).

  14. Grizard, A., Vercouter, L., Stratulat, T., & Muller, G. (2007). A peer-to-peer normative system to achieve social order. In Coordination, organizations, institutions, and norms in agent systems II (Vol. 4386, pp. 274–289). Springer.

  15. Huynh T., Jennings N., Shadbolt N. (2006) An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13(2): 119–154. doi:10.1007/s10458-005-6825-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jennings N. (1993) Commitments and conventions: The foundation of coordination in multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review 8(3): 223–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kempe, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2003). Maximizing the spread of influence through a social network. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 137–146).

  18. Kittock J. (2002) Emergence of social conventions in complex networks. Artificial Intelligence 141(1–2): 171–185. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(02)00262-X.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Kleinberg J. (2000) Navigation in a small world. Nature 406(3): 845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mahmoud, S., Griffiths, N., Keppens, J., & Luck, M. (2010). The role of mutation in norm emergence. In Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on normative multi-agent systems (pp. 23–28).

  21. Modgil, S., Faci, N., Meneguzzi, F., Oren, N., Miles, S., & Luck, M. (2009). A framework for monitoring agent-based normative systems. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 153–160).

  22. Morales, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Esteva, M. (2011). Using experience to generate new regulations. In Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 307–312).

  23. Mukherjee, P., Sen, S., & Airiau, S. (2008). Norm emergence under constrained interactions in diverse societies. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 779–786).

  24. Oh, J., & Smith, S. (2008). A few good agents: multi-agent social learning. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 339–346).

  25. Oliver P. (1980) Rewards and punishments as selective incentives for collective action: Theoretical investigations. American Journal of Sociology 85(6): 1356–1375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Page S. (1997) On incentives and updating in agent based models. Computational Economics 10(1): 67–87

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Perreau de Pinninck Bas A., Sierra C., Schorlemmer M. (2009) A multiagent network for peer norm enforcement. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 21(3): 397–424. doi:10.1007/s10458-009-9107-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pirzada A. A., Mcdonald C. (2006) Trust establishment in pure ad-hoc networks. Wireless Personal Communications 37(1–2): 139–168. doi:10.1007/s11277-006-1574-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sabater-Mir J., Paolucci M., Conte R. (2006) Repage: Reputation and image among limited autonomous partners. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9: 2

    Google Scholar 

  30. Salazar N., Rodriguez-Aguilar J. A., Arcos J. (2010) Robust coordination in large convention spaces. AI Communications 23(4): 357–372

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Salazar, N., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2010). Convention emergence through spreading mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (Vol. 1, pp. 1431–1432).

  32. Salazar, N., Rodriguez-aguilar, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2010). Robust coordination through spreading mechanisms. Technical Report IIIA-TR-2010-10, Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, Spanish National Research Council.

  33. Salazar, N., Rodriguez-aguilar, J. A., & Arcos, J. L. (2008). Infection-based self-configuration in agent societies. In Proceedings of the 2008 conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation (pp. 1945–1951).

  34. Savarimuthu, B., Cranefield, S., & Purvis, M. (2007). Norm emergence in agent societies formed by dynamically changing networks. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (pp. 464–470). doi:10.1109/IAT.2007.76.

  35. Sen, S., & Airiau, S. (2007). Emergence of norms through social learning. In Proceedings of the twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 1507–1512).

  36. Sethi, R., & Somanathan, E. (2005). Norm compliance and strong reciprocity. In Moral sentiments and material interests: The foundations of cooperation in economic life (pp. 229–250). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  37. Shoham Y., Tennenholtz M. (1997) On the emergence of social conventions: Modeling, analysis, and simulations. Artificial Intelligence 94(1–2): 139–166. doi:10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00028-3.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Singh, M. (2000). A social semantics for agent communication languages. In Issues in agent communication (pp. 31–45). Berlin: Springer.

  39. Sommerfeld R. D., Krambeck H. J., Semmann D., Milinski M. (2007) Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(44): 17435–17440. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704598104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Steels L. (1995) A self-organizing spatial vocabulary. Artificial Life 2(3): 319–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Szabó G., Fath G. (2007) Evolutionary games on graphs. Physics Reports 446(4–6): 97–216

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Vogiatzis, G., MacGillivray, I., & Chli, M. (2010). A probabilistic model for trust and reputation. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 225–232).

  43. Walker, A., & Wooldridge, M. (1995). Understanding the emergence of conventions in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on multi-agent systems (pp. 384–389).

  44. Yu, C., Werfel, J., & Nagpal, R. (2010). Collective decision-making in multi-agent systems by implicit leadership. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Richland, SC (pp 1189–1196).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Henry Franks, Nathan Griffiths & Arshad Jhumka

Authors
  1. Henry Franks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan Griffiths
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arshad Jhumka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry Franks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Franks, H., Griffiths, N. & Jhumka, A. Manipulating convention emergence using influencer agents. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 26, 315–353 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-012-9193-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-012-9193-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation