Using Testimonies to Enforce the Behavior of Agents

  • Fernanda Duran
  • Viviane Torres da Silva
  • Carlos J. P. de Lucena
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4870)


Governance copes with the heterogeneity, autonomy and diversity of interests among different agents in multi-agent systems (MAS) by establishing norms. Although norms can be used to regulate dialogical and non-dialogical actions, the majority of governance systems only governs the interaction between agents. Some mechanisms that intend to regulate other agent actions concentrate on messages that are public to the governance system and on actions that are visible by it. But in open MAS with heterogeneous and independently designed agents, there will be private messages that can only be perceived by senders and receivers and execution of actions that can only be noticed by the agents that are executing them or by a group of agents that suffers from their consequences. This paper presents a governance mechanism based on testimonies provided by agents that witness facts that are violating norms. The mechanism points out if agents really violated norms.


Open multi-agent system governance norms and testimonies 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F., García-Camino, A., Noriega, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Sierra, C.: Operationalisation of Norms for Usage in Electronic Institutions. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in agent systems, pp. 223–225 (2006) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu, B., Singh, M.: Detecting Deception in Reputation Management. In: Proc. of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS 2003), pp. 73–80 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Regulative and Constitutive Norms in Normative Multi-Agent Systems. In: Proceeding of KS, pp. 255–265. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cremonini, M., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F.: Coordination and Access Control in Open Distributed Agent Systems: The TuCSoN Approach. In: Porto, A., Roman, G.-C. (eds.) COORDINATION 2000. LNCS, vol. 1906, pp. 99–114. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Daskalopulu, A., Dimitrakos, T., Maibaum, T.: E-Contract Fulfilment and Agents’ Attitudes. In: Proc. ERCIM WG E-Commerce Workshop on The Role of Trust in e-Business (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Esteva, M., Rodriguez-Aguilar, J.A., Rosell, B., Arcos, AMELI, J. L.: An Agent-based Middleware for Electronic Institutions. In: Proc. of the 3rd Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and MAS, USA, pp. 236–243 (2004) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Esteva, M., de la Cruz, D., Sierra, C.: Islander: An Electronic Institutions Editor. In: Proc. of Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1045–1052 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guedes, J., Silva, V., Lucena, C.J.P.: A Reputation Model Based on Testimonies. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Agent-Oriented Information Systems at CAiSE, pp. 37–47 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jøsang, A., Hayward, R., Pope, S.: Trust Network Analysis with Subjective Logic. In: Australasian Computer Science Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jøsang, A., Bondi, V.A.: Legal Reasoning with Subjective Logic. Artificial Reasoning and Law 8(4), 289–315 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jøsang, A.: An Algebra for Assessing Trust in Certification Chains. In: Proceedings of the Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (NDSS 1999). The Internet Society (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jøsang, A.: An Algebra for Assessing Trust in Certification Chains. In: Proc. Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    López, F.: Social Powers and Norms: Impact on Agent Behaviour. PhD thesis. University of Southampton. UK (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Minsky, N., Ungureanu, V.: Law-Governed Interaction: A Coordination & Control Mechanism for Heterogeneous Distributed Systems. ACM TSEM 9(3), 273–305 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paes, R.: Regulating the Interaction Between Agents in Open Systems – a Law Approach. Master’s thesis, Pontificia Univeridade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, BR (2005) Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel, J., Teacy, W., Jennings, et al.: Monitoring, Policing and Trust for Grid-Based Virtual Organizations. In: Proc. of the UK e-Science All Hands Meeting 2005, UK, pp. 891–898 (2005) Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silva, V.: Implementing Norms that Govern Non-Dialogical Actions. In: Sichman, J.S., et al. (eds.) COIN 2007 Workshops. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4870, pp. 218–231. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Singh, M.: An Ontology for Commitments in Multiagent Systems: Toward a Unification of Normative Concepts. In: Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 7(1), pp. 97–113. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stigler, S.M.: Thomas Bayes’ Bayesian Inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 145(A), 250–258 (1982)zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Svensson, H., Jøsang, A.: Correlation of Intrusion Alarms with Subjective Logic. In: Proceedings of the sixth Nordic Workshop on Secure IT systems (NordSec 2001), Copenhagen, Denmark (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J., Aldewereld, H., Dignum, F.: Implementing Norms in Multiagent Systems. In: Lindemann, G., Denzinger, J., Timm, I.J., Unland, R. (eds.) MATES 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3187, pp. 313–327. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernanda Duran
    • 1
  • Viviane Torres da Silva
    • 2
  • Carlos J. P. de Lucena
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaPUCRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de Sistemas Informáticos y ComputaciónUCMMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations