Advertisement

Self-regulation of Social Exchange Processes: A Model Based in Drama Theory

  • Renata G. WotterEmail author
  • Diana F. Adamatti
  • Graçaliz P. Dimuro
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 616)

Abstract

This paper presents a dramatic model for self-regulation of social exchange processes in multiagent systems, based on the concepts of Drama Theory. The model has five phases of dramatic resolution, which involve feelings, emotions, trust and reputation. Agents with different social exchange strategies interact each other in order to maximize their strategy-based fitness functions. The objective is to obtain a more natural model than the ones existing in the literature, which are based on (partially observable) Markov decision processes or in game theory, so that it can be applied in real-world applications. We aim at promoting more balanced and fair multiagent interactions, increasing the number of successful social exchanges and, thus, promoting the continuity of social exchanges.

Keywords

Drama theory Social exchange processes Regulation of interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the Brazilian funding agencies CAPES and CNPQ, under Processes 481283/2013-7, 306970/2013-9 and 232827/2014-1. G.P. Dimuro is in a sabatic year at Departamento de Automática y Computación, Universidad Pública de Navarra, under the Brazilian Program of Science without Borders, CNPq/Brazil.

References

  1. 1.
    Piaget, J.: Sociological Studies. Routlege, London (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dimuro, G.P., Costa, A.C.R., Palazzo, L.: Systems of exchange values as tools for multi-agent organizations. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 11, 27–40 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodrigues, M.R., da Rocha Costa, A.C.: Using qualitative exchange values to improve the modelling of social interactions. In: Hales, D., Edmonds, B., Norling, E., Rouchier, J. (eds.) MABS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2927, pp. 57–72. Springer, Berlin (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodrigues, M.R., Costa, A.C.R., Bordini, R.: A system of exchange values to support social interactions in artificial societies. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagents Systems, AAMAS 2003, Melbourne, pp. 81–88. ACM Press (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grimaldo, F., Lozano, M.A., Barber, F.: Coordination and sociability for intelligent virtual agents. In: Sichman, J.S., Padget, J., Ossowski, S., Noriega, P. (eds.) COIN 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4870, pp. 58–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dimuro, G.P., da Rocha Costa, A.C., Gonçalves, L.V., Hübner, A.: Centralized regulation of social exchanges between personality-based agents. In: Noriega, P., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Boella, G., Boissier, O., Dignum, V., Fornara, N., Matson, E. (eds.) COIN 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4386, pp. 338–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pereira, D.R., Gonçalves, L.V., Dimuro, G.P., Costa, A.C.R.: Towards the self-regulation of personality-based social exchange processes in multiagent systems. In: Zaverucha, G., da Costa, A.L. (eds.) SBIA 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5249, pp. 113–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dimuro, G.P., Costa, A.R.C., Gonçalves, L.V., Pereira, D.: Recognizing and learning models of social exchange strategies for the regulation of social interactions in open agent societies. J. Braz. Comput. Soc. 17, 143–161 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dimuro, G.P., da Rocha Costa, A.C.: Regulating social exchanges in open MAS: The problem of reciprocal conversions between POMDPs and HMMs. Inf. Sci. 323, 16–33 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rodrigues, M.R.: Social techniques for effective interactions in open cooperative systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, Southhampton (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Macedo, L.F.K., Dimuro, G.P., Aguiar, M.S., Coelho, H.: An evolutionary spatial game-based approach for the self-regulation of social exchanges in MAS. In: Schaub, T., Friedrich, G., O’Sullivan, B., (eds.) ECAI 2014–21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Proceedings in Frontier in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, Netherlands, pp. 573–578. IOS Press (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Von Laer, A., Dimuro, G.P., Adamatti, D.F.: Analysing the influence of the cultural aspect in the self-regulation of social exchanges in MAS societies: an evolutionary game-based approach. In: Pereira, F., Machado, P., Costa, E., Cardoso, A. (eds.) EPIA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9273, pp. 673–686. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rabin, M.: Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 86(5), 1281–1302 (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xianyu, B.: Social preference, incomplete information, and the evolution of ultimatum game in the small world networks: An agent-based approach. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 13, 2 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macedo, L.F.K., Dimuro, G.P., Aguiar, M.S., Costa, A.C.R., Mattos, V.L.D., Coelho, H.: Analyzingthe evolution of social exchange strategies in social preference-based MAS throughan evolutionary spatial approach of the ultimatum game. In: 2012 Third BrazilianWorkshopon Social Simulation, BWSS 2012, Los Alamitos, pp. 83–90. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rao, A.S., Georgeff, M.P.: Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In: Fikes, R., Sandewall, E. (eds.) Proceedings og the 2nd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 473–484. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1991)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bordini, R.H., Hübner, J.F., Wooldrige, M.: Programming Multi-agent Systems in AgentSpeak Using Jason. Wiley Series in Agent Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Wiley, New York (1944)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luce, R.D., Raiffa, H.: Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. Dover, New York (1989)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leyton-Brown, K., Shoham, Y.: Essentials of Game Theory: A Concise, Multidisciplinary Introduction. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael (2008)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Howard, N.: Drama theory and its relation to game theory. part 1: Dramatic resolution vs. rational solution. Group Decis. Negot. 3(2), 187–206 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howard, N.: What is Drama Theory? (2016). Acessed January 2016Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ortony, A., Clore, G.L., Collins, A.: The Cognitive Structure of Emotionsn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rojas, Y.E.L., Adamatti, D.F., Dimuro, G.P.: Trust transference on social exchanges among triads of agents based on dependence relations and reputation. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Workshop on Smart Simulation and Modelling for Complex Systems at 24th Internacional Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2015, Buenos Aires (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Howard, N.: Soft game theory. Inf. Decis. Technol. 16, 215–227 (1990)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Howard, N.: Drama theory and its relation to game theory. part 2: Formal model of the resolution process. Group Decis. Negot. 3(2), 207–235 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Adamatti, D.F., Bazzan, A.: Afrodite - ambiente de simulação baseado em agentes com emoções. In: Proceedings of ABS 2003 - Agent Based Simulation, Montpellier (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marsh, S.: Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. Ph.D. thesis, University of Stirling (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Review on computational trust and reputation models. Artif. Intell. Rev. 24(1), 33–60 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Reputation and social network analysis in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagents Systems, AAMAS 2002, pp. 475–482. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huynh, T.D., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.R.: An integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 13(2), 119–154 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu, H., Miao, C., An, B., Shen, Z., Leung, C.: Reputation-aware task allocation for human trustees. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2014, New York, pp. 357–364. IFAAMAS/ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rodrigues, H.D.N., Adamatti, D.F., Dimuro, G.P.: Modelagem de agentes BDI-Fuzzy submetidos ao processo de reputação. In: X Workshop-Escola de Sistemas de Agentes, seus Ambientes e Aplicações, p. 143. UFF, Niterói (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sabater, J., Sierra, C.: Regret: A reputation model for gregarious societies. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Deception Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 61–70 (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hübner, J.F., Vercouter, L., Boissier, O.: Instrumenting multi-agent organisations with artifacts to support reputation processes. In: Hübner, J.F., Matson, E., Boissier, O., Dignum, V. (eds.) COIN@AAMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5428, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Renata G. Wotter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Diana F. Adamatti
    • 1
  • Graçaliz P. Dimuro
    • 1
  1. 1.Centro de Ciências ComputacionaisUniversidade Federal do Rio GrandeRio GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations