A Coherence Based Framework for Institutional Agents

  • Sindhu Joseph
  • Carles Sierra
  • Marco Schorlemmer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4870)


We introduce in this paper an agent model based on coherence theory. We give a formalization of Thagard’s theory on coherence and use it to explain the reasoning process of an intentional agent that permits the agent to drop beliefs or to violate norms in order to keep a maximal state of coherence. The architecture is illustrated in the paper and a discussion on the possible use of this approach in the design of institutional agents is presented.


Belief Revision Norm Logic Deontic Logic Coherence Measure Agent Architecture 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, K.: What Should We Do?: Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions and desires. In: AGENTS 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casali, A., Godo, L., Sierra, C.: Graded BDI models for agent architectures. In: Leite, J.A., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3487, Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castelfranchi, C., Dignum, F., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Deliberative normative agents: Principles and architecture. In: Jennings, N.R. (ed.) ATAL 1999. LNCS, vol. 1757, Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Festinger, L.: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press (1957)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goble, L., Meyer, J.-J.C. (eds.): DEON 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4048. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin, J.Y.: An economic theory of institutional change: Induced and imposed change. Cato Journal 9(1) (1989)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Neumann, J.V., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Science Editions, J. Wiley, Chichester (1964)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pasquier, P., Chaib-draa, B.: The cognitive coherence approach for agent communication pragmatics. In: AAMAS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Searle, J.R.: The Construction of Social Reality. Free Press (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thagard, P.: Coherence in Thought and Action. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vigan, F., Fornara, N., Colombetti, M.: An operational approach to norms in artificial institutions. In: AAMAS 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Wright, G.H.: An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action: With a Bibliography of Deontic and Imperative Logic. North-Holland Pub. Co, Amsterdam (1968)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    López y López, F., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: Constraining autonomy through norms. In: AAMAS 2002 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sindhu Joseph
    • 1
  • Carles Sierra
    • 1
  • Marco Schorlemmer
    • 1
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, IIIASpanish National Research Council, CSIC Bellaterra(Barcelona)Spain

Personalised recommendations