Norms of Behaviour and Their Identification and Verification in Open Multi-Agent Societies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Norms have an obvious role in the coordinating and predicting behaviours in societies of software agents. Most researchers assume that agents already know the norms of their societies beforehand at design time. Others assume that norms are assigned by a leader or a legislator. Some researchers take into account the acquisition of societies’ norms through inference. Their works apply to closed multi-agent societies in which the agents have identical (or similar) internal architecture for representing norms. This paper addresses three things: 1) the idea of a Verification Component that was previously used to verify candidate norms in multi-agent societies, 2) a known modification of the Verification Component that makes it applicable in open multi-agent societies, and 3) a modification of the Verification Component, so that agents can dynamically infer the new emerged and abrogated norms in open multi-agent societies. Using the JADE software framework, we build a restaurant interaction scenario as an example (where restaurants usually host heterogeneous agents), and demonstrate how permission and prohibition of behavior can be identified by agents using dynamic norms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".