Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accountability in multi-agent organizations: from conceptual design to agent programming

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

Abstract

This work proposes a notion of accountability for multi-agent systems, that supports the development of robust distributed systems. Accountability is grounded on responsibility, and encompasses both a normative dimension, and a structural dimension. For realizing robust distributed systems, conceived as agent systems or organizations, it is necessary to keep a right level of situational awareness, through the introduction of the means for gathering and propagating accounts, upon which actions can be taken. This paper presents a formalization of accountability, including the accountability lifecycle, for the design of robust agent organizations. Particular attention is given to the interplay of accountability and goals, by describing typical patterns in which accountability affects the state of an agent’s goals and vice versa. We illustrate the practical aspects of the proposal by means of JaCaMo (Boissier et al. Sci Comput Program 78(6):747–761, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.004).

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Available at http://di.unito.it/moiseaccountability.

  2. delay(G) is a keyword encoding an organizational event of unfulfillment of an obligation concerning goal G, issued towards some responsible agent. We use it as a shortcut for the formula scheme_id(S) & unfulfilled(obligation(_,_,done(S,G,_),_)).

References

  1. Alderson, D. L., & Doyle, J. C. (2010). Contrasting views of complexity and their implications for network-centric infrastructures. IEEE Transactions Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 40(4), 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2048027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aldewereld, H., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Noriega, P. & Padget, J. (eds.): (2016). Social coordination frameworks for social technical systems, Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 30. Springer International Publishing https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33570-4

  3. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Boissier, O., May, K.M., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2018)Accountability and responsibility in agent organizations. In T. Miller, N. Oren, Y. Sakurai, I. Noda, B.T.R. Savarimuthu, T. Cao Son (eds.) PRIMA 2018: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems - 21st International Conference, Tokyo, Japan, October 29 - November 2, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11224, pp. 261–278. Springer (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03098-8_16

  4. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Boissier, O., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2021) Demonstrating Exception Handling in JaCaMo. In F. Dignum, J.M. Corchado, F. De La Prieta (eds.) Advances in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Social Good. The PAAMS Collection - 19th International Conference, PAAMS Salamanca, Spain, October 6-8, 2021, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12946, pp. 341–345. Springer (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85739-4_28

  5. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Boissier, O., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2021). Distributing Responsibilities for Exception Handling in JaCaMo. In U. Endriss, A. Nowé, F. Dignum, A. Lomuscio (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS ’21, pp. 1752–1754. IFAAMAS https://doi.org/10.5555/3463952.3464226

  6. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Capuzzimati, F., & Micalizio, R. (2018). Type checking for protocol role enactments via commitments. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 32(3), 349–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-018-9382-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2016) Computational accountability. In Proc. of the AI*IA Workshop on Deep Understanding and Reasoning, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1802, pp. 56–62. CEUR-WS.org

  8. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K.M., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2018). Computational Accountability in MAS Organizations with ADOPT. Applied Sciences 8(4) https://doi.org/10.3390/app8040489

  9. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., May, K. M., Micalizio, R., & Tedeschi, S. (2019). MOCA: An ORM MOdel for computational accountability. Journal of Intelligenza Artificiale, 13(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.3233/IA-180014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C. & Micalizio, R. (2020). Fragility and Robustness in Multiagent Systems. In C. Baroglio, J.F. Hubner, M. Winikoff (eds.) Post-Proc. of the 8th International Workshop on Engineering Multi-Agent Systems, EMAS 2020, Revised Selected Papers, no. 12589 in LNAI, pp. 61–77. Springer, Auckland, New Zealand https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66534-0

  11. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2020) Is explanation the real key factor for innovation? In: C. Musto, D. Magazzeni, S. Ruggieri, G. Semeraro (eds.) Proceedings of the Italian Workshop on Explainable Artificial Intelligence co-located with 19th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, XAI.it@AIxIA 2020, Online Event, November 25-26, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 2742, pp. 87–95. CEUR-WS.org http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2742/short2.pdf

  12. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2021). Reimagining robust distributed systems through accountable MAS. IEEE Internet Computing 25(6) https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2021.3115450

  13. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2021). Robustness based on Accountability in Multiagent Organizations. In U. Endriss, A. Nowé, F. Dignum, A. Lomuscio (eds.) Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS ’21, pp. 142–150. IFAAMAS https://doi.org/10.5555/3463952.3463975

  14. Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R. & Tedeschi, S. (2022). Exception Handling as a Social Concern. IEEE Internet Computing, https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2021.3115450

  15. Bauer, B., Müller, J., & Odell, J. (2001). Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent software systems. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 11(3), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194001000517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boissier, O., Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., Ricci, A., & Santi, A. (2013). Multi-agent oriented programming with JaCaMo. Science of Computer Programming, 78(6), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2011.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boissier, O., Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F. & Ricci, A. (2019). Dimensions in programming multi-agent systems. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 34 https://doi.org/10.1017/S026988891800005X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bordini, R. H., Hübner, J. F., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Programming Multi-Agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. USA: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 8(3), 203–236. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGNT.0000018806.20944.ef

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. de Brito, M., Hübner, J. F., & Boissier, O. (2017). Situated artificial institutions: stability, consistency, and flexibility in the regulation of agent societies. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-017-9379-3.

  21. Chopra, A.K. & Singh, M.P. (2014). The thing itself speaks: Accountability as a foundation for requirements in sociotechnical systems. In IEEE 7th Int. Workshop RELAW. IEEE Computer Society https://doi.org/10.1109/RELAW.2014.6893477

  22. Chopra, A.K. & Singh, M.P. (2016). From social machines to social protocols: Software engineering foundations for sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 903–914 https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2883018

  23. Chopra, A.K. & Singh, M.P. (2018). Sociotechnical Systems and Ethics in the Large. In: J. Furman, G.E. Marchant, H. Price, F. Rossi (eds.) Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES 2018, New Orleans, LA, USA, February 02-03, 2018, pp. 48–53. ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278740

  24. Cranefield, S., Oren, N. & Vasconcelos, W.W. (2018). Accountability for practical reasoning agents. In: M. Lujak (ed.) Agreement Technologies - 6th International Conference, AT 2018, Bergen, Norway, December 6-7, 2018, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11327, pp. 33–48. Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17294-7_3

  25. Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., & Fickas, S. (1993). Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Science of Computer Programming, 20(1), 3–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6423(93)90021-G

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Dignum, V., Dignum, F., & Meyer, J. J. (2004). An agent-mediated approach to the support of knowledge sharing in organizations. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888904000244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dignum, V., Vázquez-Salceda, J. Dignum, F. (2004). OMNI: introducing social structure, norms and ontologies into agent organizations. In Programming Multi-Agent Systems, Second International Workshop ProMAS, Selected Revised and Invited Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3346, pp. 181–198. Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32260-3_10

  28. Dubnick, M.J. & Justice, J.B. (2004) Accounting for accountability. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association

  29. Elder-Vass, D. (2011). The Causal Power of Social Structures: Emergence, Structure and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Executive Board of the United Nations Development Programme and of the United Nations Population Fund: The UNDP accountability system, accountability framework and oversight policy. Tech. Rep. DP/2008/16/Rev.1, United Nations (2008)

  31. Feltus, C. (2014) Aligning access rights to governance needs with the responsability metamodel (ReMMo) in the frame of enterprise architecture. Ph.D. thesis, University of Namur, Belgium

  32. Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall Inc.

  33. Goodenough, J. B. (1975). Exception handling: Issues and a proposed notation. Communication ACM, 18(12), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1145/361227.361230.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Günay, A., Winikoff, M. & Yolum, P. (2012). Commitment protocol generation. In: M. Baldoni, L.A. Dennis, V. Mascardi, W.W. Vasconcelos (eds.) Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies X - 10th International Workshop, DALT 2012, Valencia, Spain, June 4, 2012, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7784, pp. 136–152. Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37890-4_8

  35. Gutierrez-Garcia, J.O., Koning, J. & Ramos-Corchado, F. (2009). An obligation approach for exception handling in interaction protocols. In 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, vol. 3, pp. 497–500 https://doi.org/10.1109/WI-IAT.2009.334

  36. Hägg, S. (1997). A sentinel approach to fault handling in multi-agent systems. In Multi-Agent Systems Methodologies and Applications, pp. 181–195. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

  37. Halpin, T., & Morgan, T. (2008). Information Modeling and Relational Databases. USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and responsibility. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hubner, J. F., Sichman, J. S., & Boissier, O. (2007). Developing organised multiagent systems using the MOISE+ model: Programming issues at the system and agent levels. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, 1(3/4), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAOSE.2007.016266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. ISO/IEC/IEEE: Systems and software engineering - Vocabulary (2017)

  41. López y López, F. & Luck, M. (2003). Modelling norms for autonomous agents. In 4th Mexican International Conference on Computer Science (ENC 2003), 8-12 September 2003, Apizaco, Mexico, pp. 238–245. IEEE Computer Society https://doi.org/10.1109/ENC.2003.1232900

  42. Mallya, A.U. & Singh, M.P. (2005). Modeling exceptions via commitment protocols. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS ’05, pp. 122–129. ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/1082473.1082492

  43. Micalizio, R., & Torasso, P. (2014). Cooperative monitoring to diagnose multiagent plans. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 51, 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.4339

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Miller, R., & Tripathi, A. (2004). The guardian model and primitives for exception handling in distributed systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 30(12), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2004.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Platon, E., Sabouret, N. & Honiden, S. (2007). Challenges for exception handling in multi-agent systems. In Software Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems V, pp. 41–56. Springer https://doi.org/10.1145/1138063.1138072

  46. Ricci, A., Piunti, M., Viroli, M. & Omicini, A. (2009). Environment Programming in CArtAgO, pp. 259–288. Springer US https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-89299-3_8

  47. Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47(3).

  48. Singh, M.P. (2003). Distributed Enactment of Multiagent Workflows: Temporal Logic for Web Service Composition. In The Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, July 14-18, 2003, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Proceedings, pp. 907–914. ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/860575.860721

  49. Singh, M. P. (2013). Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 5(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1145/2542182.2542203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Telang, P.R., Singh, M.P. & Yorke-Smith, N. (2011). Relating Goal and Commitment Semantics. In Programming Multi-Agent Systems - 9th Int. Workshop, ProMAS, Revised Selected Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7217, pp. 22–37. Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31915-0_2

  51. Telang, P. R., Singh, M. P., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2019). A coupled operational semantics for goals and commitments. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 65, 31–85. https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11494

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Thangarajah, J., Harland, J., Morley, D.N. & Yorke-Smith, N. (2010). Operational behaviour for executing, suspending, and aborting goals in BDI agent systems. In A. Omicini, S. Sardiña, W.W. Vasconcelos (eds.) Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VIII - 8th International Workshop, DALT 2010, Toronto, Canada, May 10, 2010, Revised, Selected and Invited Papers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6619, pp. 1–21. Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20715-0_1

  53. Winikoff, M., Padgham, L., Harland, J. & Thangarajah, J. (2002) Declarative & procedural goals in intelligent agent systems. In D. Fensel, F. Giunchiglia, D.L.M. Guinness, M. Williams (eds.) Proc. of the 8th Int. Conf. on Principles and Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-02), pp. 470–481. Morgan Kaufmann

  54. Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N. R., & Wooldridge, M. (2003). Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology, 12(3), 317–370. https://doi.org/10.1145/958961.958963

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università degli Studi di Torino, Corso Svizzera 185, 10149, Torino, Italy

    Matteo Baldoni, Cristina Baroglio, Roberto Micalizio & Stefano Tedeschi

Authors
  1. Matteo Baldoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Baroglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberto Micalizio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Tedeschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Baldoni.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., Micalizio, R. et al. Accountability in multi-agent organizations: from conceptual design to agent programming. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 37, 7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-022-09590-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-022-09590-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation