Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:09:20.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Classifying sanctions and designing a conceptual sanctioning process model for socio-technical systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2016

Luis G. Nardin Open the ORCID record for Luis G. Nardin [Opens in a new window] ,
Tina Balke-Visser ,
Nirav Ajmeri ,
Anup K. Kalia ,
Jaime S. Sichman  and
Munindar P. Singh
Luis G. Nardin
Affiliation:
Computer Engineering Department, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 05508-970, Brazil e-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, CNR, 00185 Rome, Italy
Tina Balke-Visser
Affiliation:
Centre for Research in Social Simulation, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK e-mail: [email protected]
Nirav Ajmeri
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8206, USA e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Anup K. Kalia
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8206, USA e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Jaime S. Sichman
Affiliation:
Computer Engineering Department, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 05508-970, Brazil e-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Munindar P. Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8206, USA e-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We understand a socio-technical system (STS) as a cyber-physical system in which two or more autonomous parties interact via or about technical elements, including the parties’ resources and actions. As information technology begins to pervade every corner of human life, STSs are becoming ever more common, and the challenge of governing STSs is becoming increasingly important. We advocate a normative basis for governance, wherein norms represent the standards of correct behaviour that each party in an STS expects from others. A major benefit of focussing on norms is that they provide a socially realistic view of interaction among autonomous parties that abstracts low-level implementation details. Overlaid on norms is the notion of a sanction as a negative or positive reaction to potentially any violation of or compliance with an expectation. Although norms have been well studied as regards governance for STSs, sanctions have not. Our understanding and usage of norms is inadequate for the purposes of governance unless we incorporate a comprehensive representation of sanctions.

We address the aforementioned gap by proposing (i) a sanction typology that reflects the relevant features of sanctions, and (ii) a conceptual sanctioning process model providing a functional structure for sanctioning in STS. We demonstrate our contributions via a motivating scenario from the domain of renewable energy trading.

Type
Articles
Information
The Knowledge Engineering Review , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 2016 , pp. 142 - 166
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aamodt, A. & Plaza, E. 1994. Case-based reasoning; foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Communications 7(1), 39–59.Google Scholar
Andrighetto, G. & Villatoro, D. 2011. Beyond the carrot and stick approach to enforcement: an agent-based model. In European Perspectives on Cognitive Sciences, Kokinov, B., Karmiloff-Smith, A. & Nersessian, N. J. (eds), pp. 1–6. New Bulgarian University Press.Google Scholar
Andrighetto, G., Villatoro, D. & Conte, R. 2010. Norm internalization in artificial societies. AI Communications 23(4), 325–339.Google Scholar
Arionfreed, J. M. 1968. The concept of internalization. In Conduct and Conscience, Aronfreed J. M. (ed.). Academic Press, 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, K. D. 1994. Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, S. & Choi, A. H. 2014. Crowding In: How Formal Sanctions Can Facilitate Informal Sanctions. Technical report no. 2014-01/2014-04, University of Virginia School of Law. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374109.Google Scholar
Balke, T. 2009. A taxonomy for ensuring institutional compliance in utility computing. In Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Boella G., Noriega P., Pigozzi G. & Verhagen H. (eds), Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings 09121, 1–17. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
Balke, T. & Villatoro, D. 2012. Operationalization of the sanctioning process in utilitarian artificial societies. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent System VII, Cranefield S., Riemsdijk M., Vzquez-Salceda J. & Noriega P. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7254, 167–185. Springer.Google Scholar
Beccaria, M. & Ingraham, E. D. 1819. An Essay on Crimes and Punishments. Philip H. Nicklin.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1823. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Broersen, J., Cranefield, S., Elrakaiby, Y., Gabbay, D., Grossi, D., Lorini, E., Parent, X., van der Torre, L. W. N., Tummolini, L., Turrini, P. & Schwarzentruber, F. 2013. Normative reasoning and consequence. In Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Andrighetto G., Governatori G., Noriega P. & van der Torre L. W. N. (eds), Dagstuhl Follow-Ups 4, 33–70. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
Campos, J., Lopez-Sanchez, M., Salamó, M., Avila, P. & Rodrguez-Aguilar, J. A. 2013. Robust regulation adaptation in multi-agent systems. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 8(3), 13:1–13:27.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. L. & Oliveira, E. 2009. Adaptive deterrence sanctions in a normative framework. In Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, 2, 36–43, IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. L. & Oliveira, E. 2011. Social control in a normative framework: an adaptive deterrence approach. Web Intelligence and Agent Systems 9(4), 363–375.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, K. M. 2006. The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42(4), 437–451.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M. & Robinson, P. H. 2002. Why do we punish?: deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(2), 284–299.Google Scholar
Castelfranchi, C. 2000. Engineering social order. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agent World (ESAW), 1972, 1–18, Springer.Google Scholar
Castelfranchi, C. & Falcone, R. 1998. Principles of trust in MAS: cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. In Proceedings of International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (ICMAS), 72–79. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Cavadino, M. & Dignan, J. 2002. The Penal System: An Introduction. Sage.Google Scholar
Centeno, R., Billhardt, H. & Hermoso, R. 2011. An adaptive sanctioning mechanism for open multi-agent systems regulated by norms. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI, Boca Raton, FL, USA, November 7–9, 2011, 523–530. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Centeno, R., Billhardt, H. & Hermoso, R. 2013. Persuading agents to act in the right way: an incentive-based approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 26(1), 198–210.Google Scholar
Clinard, M. B. & Meier, R. F. 2008. Sociology of Deviant Behavior, 3rd edition. Thomson/Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Conte, R. & Paolucci, M. 2002. Reputation in Artificial Societies: Social Beliefs for Social Order. Springer.Google Scholar
Criado, N., Argente, E., Noriega, P. & Botti, V. 2013. Manea: a distributed architecture for enforcing norms in open MAS. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 26(1), 76–95.Google Scholar
Daskalopulu, A., Dimitrakos, T. & Maibaum, T. 2002. Evidence-based electronic contract performance monitoring. Group Decision and Negotiation 11(6), 469–485.Google Scholar
Davis, M. 2009. Punishment theory’s golden half century: a survey of developments from (about) 1957 to 2007. The Journal of Ethics 13(1), 73–100.Google Scholar
Dellarocas, C. 2006. Reputation mechanisms. In Handbook on Economics and Information Systems, Hendershott T. (ed.), 1. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., 629–660.Google Scholar
Department of Energy 2003. Grid 2030: A National Vision for Electricity’s Second 100 Years. Technical report, US Department of Energy.Google Scholar
Ellickson, R. C. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-64169-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Energy Policy Act 1992. Pub. l. 102-486, 106 stat. 2776.Google Scholar
Esteva, M., Rodrguez-Aguilar, J. A., Arcos, J. L., Sierra, C. & Garcia, P. 2000. Institutionalizing open multi-agent systems. In 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS), Boston, 381–382. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Esteva, M., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P. & Arcos, J. L. 2001. On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce: The European AgentLink Perspective, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1991, 126–147. Springer.Google Scholar
Faci, N., Modgil, S., Oren, N., Meneguzzi, F., Miles, S. & Luck, M. 2008. Towards a monitoring framework for agent-based contract systems. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Klusch M., Pechoucek M. & Polleres A. (eds), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 5180, 292–305.Google Scholar
Fiadeiro, J. L. 2008. On the challenge of engineering socio-technical systems. In Software-Intensive Systems and New Computing Paradigms, Wirsing M., Banâtre J.-P., Hölzl M. & Rauschmayer A. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5380, 80–91. Springer.Google Scholar
Gabriel, U. & Oswald, M. E. 2007. Psychology of punishment. In Encyclopedia of Law and Society: American and Global Perspectives, D. S. Clark (ed.). Sage, 1252–1254.Google Scholar
Gardner, J. 2001. Legal positivism: 51/2 myths. American Journal of Jurisprudence 46, 199–227.Google Scholar
Garner, B. A. (ed.) 2010. Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th edition. West Group.Google Scholar
Giardini, F., Andrighetto, G. & Conte, R. 2010. A cognitive model of punishment. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Ohlsson S. & Catrambone R. (eds), 1282–1288. Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Giardini, F., Paolucci, M., Villatoro, D. & Conte, R. 2014. Punishment and gossip: sustaining cooperation in a public goods game. In Advances in Social Simulation, Kamiński B. & Koloch G. (eds), Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 229, 107–118. Springer.Google Scholar
Gibbs, J. P. 1966. Sanctions. Social Problems 14(2), 147–159.Google Scholar
Grossi, D., Aldewereld, H. & Dignum, F. 2007. Ubi lex, ibi poena: designing norm enforcement in e-institutions. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II, Noriega P., Vázquez-Salceda J., Boella G., Boissier O., Dignum V., Fornara N. & Matson E. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4386, 101–114. Springer.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society, 1. Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Harper, D. 2010. Online Etymology Dictionary. http://www.etymonline.com.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1968. Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heitz, M., König, S. & Eymann, T. 2010. Reputation in multi agent systems and the incentives to provide feedback. In Multiagent System Technologies, Dix J. & Witteveen C. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6251, 40–51. Springer.Google Scholar
Helbing, D., Szolnoki, A., Perc, M. & Szabó, G. 2010. Punish, but not too hard: how costly punishment spreads in the spatial public goods game. New Journal of Physics 12(8), 083005.Google Scholar
Hendrikx, F., Bubendorfer, K. & Chard, R. 2015. Reputation systems: a survey and taxonomy. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 75, 184–197.Google Scholar
Houwing, M., Heijnen, P. W. & Bouwmans, I. 2006. Socio-technical complexity in energy infrastructures conceptual framework to study the impact of domestic level energy generation, storage and exchange. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2, 906–911.Google Scholar
Hurwicz, L. & Reiter, S. 2008. Designing Economic Mechanism. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huynh, T. D., Jennings, N. R. & Shadbolt, N. 2004. FIRE: an integrated trust and reputation model for open multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 18–22. Valencia.Google Scholar
Jensen, G. 2002. Typologizing violence: a Blackian perspective. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 22(7/8), 75–108.Google Scholar
Jones, A. J. I., Artikis, A. & Pitt, J. 2013. The design of intelligent socio-technical systems. Artificial Intelligence Review 39(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. J. I. & Sergot, M. 1993. On the characterization of law and computer systems: the normative systems perspective. In Deontic Logic in Computer Science, Meyer J.-J. C. & Wieringa R. J. (eds). John Wiley & Sons, 275–307.Google Scholar
Jøsang, A. 2001. A logic for uncertain probabilities. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based 9(3), 279–311.Google Scholar
Kalia, A. K., Zhang, Z. & Singh, M. P. 2014. Estimating trust from agents’ interactions via commitments. In ECAI-21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Prague, Schaub T., Friedrich G. & O’Sullivan B. (eds), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 263, 1043–1044. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1999. Metaphysical Elements of Justice: Part I of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd edition, Classics Series. Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
López, F. L. y. & Luck, M. 2003. Modelling norms for autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the 4th Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, Chávez E., Favela J., Mejía M. & Oliart A. (eds), 238–245. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Mah, D. N., van der Vleuten, J. M., Ip, J. C. & Hills, P. R. 2012. Governing the transition of socio-technical systems: a case study of the development of smart grids in Korea. Energy Policy 45, 133–141.Google Scholar
Mahmoud, S., Griffiths, N., Keppens, J. & Luck, M. 2012a. Efficient norm emergence through experiential dynamic punishment. In ECAI-20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Montpellier, France, L. D. Raedt, C. Bessière, D. Dubois, P. Doherty, P. Frasconi, F. Heintz & P. J. F. Lucas (eds), Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications 242, 576–581. IOS Press.Google Scholar
Mahmoud, S., Villatoro, D., Keppens, J. & Luck, M. 2012b. Optimised reputation-based adaptive punishment for limited observability. In Sixth IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems, SASO 2012, Lyon, France, September 10–14, 2012, 129–138. IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Meares, T. L., Katyal, N. & Kahan, D. M. 2004. Updating the study of punishment. Stanford Law Review 56, 1171–1210.Google Scholar
Meier, R. F. 1982. Perspectives on the concept of social control. Annual Review of Sociology 8, 35–55.Google Scholar
Miethe, T. D. & Lu, H. 2005. Punishment—A Comparative Historical Perspective. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miles, S. & Griffiths, N. 2015. Accounting for circumstances in reputation assessment. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Weiss G., Yolum P., Bordini R. H. & Elkind E. (eds), 1653–1654. ACM Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1871. Utilitarianism, 4th edition. Longmans.Google Scholar
Minsky, N. H. 1991. Law-governed systems. Software Engineering Journal 6(5), 285–302.Google Scholar
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-Volume 1, (AAMAS), 153–160. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
Morris, R. T. 1956. A typology of norms. American Sociological Review 21(5), 610–613.Google Scholar
Mui, L., Halberstadt, A. & Mohtashemi, M. 2002. Evaluating reputation in multi-agents systems. In Trust, Reputation, and Security: Theories and Practice, AAMAS International Workshop, Bologna, Italy, July 15, 2002, Selected and Invited Papers, Falcone R., Barber K. S., Korba L. & Singh M. P. (eds), 123–137. Springer.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. 1998. Deterrence and incapacitation. In The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, Tonry M. (ed.). Oxford University Press, 345–368.Google Scholar
Pasquier, P., Flores, R. A. & Chaib-draa, B. 2005. Modelling flexible social commitments and their enforcement. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Engineering Societies in the Agents World (ESAW), Gleizes M. P., Omicini A. & Zambonelli F. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3451, 139–151. Springer.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. (ed.) 2010. A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, 2nd edition. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. B., Sell, A., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. 2012. To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(6), 682–695.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1995. Sociological Studies. Routledge.Google Scholar
Picket, J. P. (ed.) 2011. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Pinninck, A. P. d. 2010. Techniques for Peer Enforcement in Multiagent Networks. PhD thesis, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Pinninck, A. P. d., Sierra, C. & Schorlemmer, M. 2010. A multiagent network for peer norm enforcement. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 21(3), 397–424.Google Scholar
Pinyol, I. & Sabater-Mir, J. 2013. Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review 40(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J., Dellunde, P. & Paolucci, M. 2012. Reputation-based decisions for logic-based cognitive agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 24(1), 175–216.Google Scholar
Posner, E. A. 2000. Law and Social Norms. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. & Rasmusen, E. B. 1999. Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics 19(3), 369–382.Google Scholar
PowerTAC. 2010. Power Trading Agent Competition. http://www.powertac.org.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1934. Social sanction. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, E. R. A. Seligman (ed.), XIII. Macmillan Publishers, 531–534.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, M. R. & Luck, M. 2007. Cooperative interactions: an exchange values model. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems II, Noriega P., Vázquez-Salceda J., Boella G., Boissier O., Dignum V., Fornara N. & Matson E. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4386, 356–371. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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), 3.Google Scholar
Sabater-Mir, J. & Sierra, C. 2002. Social ReGreT, a reputation model based on social relations. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 3(1), 44–56.Google Scholar
Schwartz, R. D. & Orleans, S. 1967. On legal sanctions. The University of Chicago Law Review 34(2), 274–300.Google Scholar
Singh, M. P. 2013. Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 5(1), 21:1–21:23.Google Scholar
Singh, M. P., Arrott, M., Balke, T., Chopra, A. K., Christiaanse, R., Cranefield, S., Dignum, F., Eynard, D., Farcas, E., Fornara, N., Gandon, F., Governatori, G., Dam, H. K., Hulstijn, J., Krüger, I., Lam, H.-P., Meisinger, M., Noriega, P., Savarimuthu, B. T. R., Tadanki, K., Verhagen, H. & Villata, S. 2013. The uses of norms. In Normative Multi-Agent Systems, Andrighetto G., Governatori G., Noriega P. & van der Torre L. W. N. (eds), Dagstuhl Follow-Ups 4, 191–229. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik.Google Scholar
Singh, M. P. & Huhns, M. N. 2005. Service-Oriented Computing: Semantics, Processes, Agents. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Vercouter, L. & Muller, G. 2010. L.I.A.R. achieving social control in open and decentralized multiagent systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence 24(8), 723–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villatoro, D., Andrighetto, G., Sabater-Mir, J. & Conte, R. 2011. Dynamic sanctioning for robust and cost-efficient norm compliance. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 414–419. AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Vu, K., Begouic, M. M. & Novosel, D. 1997. Grids get smart protection and control. IEEE Computer Applications in Power 10(4), 40–44.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. & Singh, M. P. 2010. Evidence-based trust: a mathematical model geared for multiagent systems. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems 5(4), 14:1–14:28.Google Scholar
Weigand, H. 2009. Using communication norms in socio-technical systems. In Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems, Whitworth, B. & de Moor, A. (eds). IGI Global, 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitworth, B. 2006. Social-technical systems. In Encyclopedia of Human Computer Interaction, C. Ghaoui (ed.). Idea Group Reference, 533–541.Google Scholar
Zacharia, G. & Maes, P. 2000. Trust management through reputation mechanisms. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14(9), 881–907.Google Scholar