Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Engineering self-organising self-aware electronic institutions-by Jeremy Pitt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Engineering self-organising self-aware electronic institutions-by Jeremy Pitt

199

Published on

An Awareness Virtual Lecture

An Awareness Virtual Lecture

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
199
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Engineering Self-Organising andSelf-Aware Electronic Institutions Jeremy Pitt Department of Electrical & Electronic Engineering Imperial College London, UK AWARENESS Online Lecture SeriesRecorded: Amsterdam, 22-23 September 2011
  • 2. Agenda Agenda Problem: resource allocation in open networks and infrastructures Proposal: self-organising electronic institutions Method: sociologically-inspired computing Formal Characterisation and Experimental Results Self-aware Institutions Summary and Conclusions Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 1 / 19
  • 3. Problem Specification Resource allocation in open embedded systems Common Pool Resource (CPR) problem exogenous: resource level determined by the environment, i.e. by external forces beyond the control of the agents (e.g. water appropriation) endogenous: resource level determined by the contributions of the agents themselves (e.g. MANET, sensor networks) hybrid: both exogenous and endogenous, resource level determined by external forces and internal contributions (e.g. smart grid) Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 2 / 19
  • 4. Informal Operation Resource allocation occurs in timeslices Exogenous Agents demand resources Agents are allocated resources Agents appropriate resources Endogeneous Agents contribute resources Agents demand resources Agents are allocated resources Agents appropriate resources Notes Agents can ‘mis-behave’ Physical and conventional actions Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 3 / 19
  • 5. Formal Description Depends on the environment Exogenous: resource allocation problem for set of resources P i ui = ri , if rj P j=1 = 0, otherwise Endogenous: linear public good game n a a ui = rj + b(1 − ri ), where a > b and <b n j=1 n Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 4 / 19
  • 6. Proposal: Introspection How do people do it? Make up and write down rules to regulate/organise behaviour Example 1: deliberative assemblies Robert’s Rules of Order (RONR): standard reference manual for procedures in deliberative assemblies Anything goes unless someone objects Example 2: common-pool resource (CPR) management Ostrom: self-governing institutions An alternative to privatisation or centralisation Common features of both examples: role-based protocols for implementing conventional procedures Self-organisation: change the rules according to other (‘fixed’, ‘pre-defined’) sets of rules Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 5 / 19
  • 7. Ostrom: Governing the Commons Definition of an Institution “set of working rules that are used to determine who is eligible to make decisions in some arena, what actions are allowed or constrained, ... [and] contain prescriptions that forbid, permit or require some action or outcome” Implicitly includes RONR Conventionally agreed, mutually understood, monitored and enforced, mutable and nested Nesting: tripartite analysis operational-, collective- and constitutional-choice rules Decision arenas Requires representation of Institutionalised Power Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 6 / 19
  • 8. Ostrom: Sustainability of the Commons Principles of enduring institutions 1. Clearly defined boundaries 2. Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and the state of the prevailing local environment 3. Collective choice arrangements 4. Monitoring by appointed agencies 5. Flexible scale of graduated sanctions 6. Access to fast, cheap conflict resolution mechanisms 7. Systems of systems 8. No intervention by external authorities Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 7 / 19
  • 9. Method Sociologically-inspired computing How to build a computational model of self-organising CPR? Formal Calculus1 Principled PreFormal Characterisation ... Operationalisation Computer ‘Theory’ - - Model 6 Calculusn Theory Systematic Construction Experimentation Expressive capacity Semantic formality ⇐ Conceptual granularity ⇒ Computational tractability ? Observed ObservedPhenomena Performance Apply method to Ostrom’s theory of CPR using a formal calculus Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 8 / 19
  • 10. Calculusi (1 i n) Dynamic Norm-Governed Multi-Agent Systems Norm-governed system specification Physical power, institutionalised power, and permission Obligations, and other complex normative relations Sanctions and penalties Roles and actions (communication language) Protocols Protocol stack: object-/meta-/meta-meta-/etc. level protocols Transition protocols to instigate and implement change Specification Space Degrees of Freedom (DoF) define changeable components of a specification Defined a ‘space’ and a notion of distance Move between points, define rules about moving between points Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 9 / 19
  • 11. Analysis: CPR Institutions as NG-MAS Ostrom institutions as dynamic specifications Ostrom Institutional Rules Artikis Dynamic Specification Governance Constitutional Meta-Meta-Level Formulation Choice Protocol Policy Making ? ? Role Assignment Adjudication Collective Meta-Level Rule Selection Management Choice Protocol Dispute Resolution Appropriation ? ? Access Control Provision Operational Object-Level Resource Allocation Monitoring Choice Protocol Monitoring Enforcement Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 10 / 19
  • 12. Formal Characterisation The Event Calculus (EC) A general purpose action language for representing events, and for reasoning about effects of events A logical semantics Action language: Events occur at specific times (when they ‘happen’) A set of events, each with a given time, is called a narrative Given a start state and a narrative, can compute what holds in the end state (and each point in between) Implementation Implementation directly in Prolog (as well as in other programming languages) In Prolog, the specification is its own implementation; Hence, executable specification Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 11 / 19
  • 13. Institutional Principles in Event Calculus The institutional principles as EC Protocols Clearly defined boundaries ⇒ role-assignment and role-based access control Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and the state of the prevailing local environment ⇒ mapping Bf to If by opinion formation and expressed preferences Collective choice arrangements ⇒ voting protocol and participatory adaptation Monitoring ⇒ event recognition Flexible scale of graduated sanctions ⇒ objections and sanctions Access to fast, cheap conflict resolution mechanisms ⇒ alternative dispute resolution Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 12 / 19
  • 14. Experimental Testbed The EC rules can be used as a specification for an experimental testbed Class diagram: Head Monitor ag_name ag_name allocate(); report(); declare_raMeth(); 0..1 sanction(); uphold(); 1 exclude(); Member 0..1 Institution ag_name {I} 1 resource_level activity ra_method compliancy_degree monitoring_freq sanctioning_grade request(); * 1 adr_method appropriate(); unintent_violation rev_behaviour(); appeal(); refill(); Agent state chart: [(|offences| <= limit Pr 5) v (uphold Pr 6)] v v [comply v !Pr 4] active inactive [!comply Pr 4] v Member c Member allocate Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 13 / 19
  • 15. Experiments Experimental setup Define agent population and profiles 100 agents, active member’s demand ≈ 50, varying refill rates 100 trials with a maximum lifespan tmax = 500 all or only 50% of the agents comply agents get chance to change their behaviour when readmitted no or low probability of unintentional violation Increasing subset of principles selected none: agents allocate at will 2: ra method ∈ {queue, ration}, depending on P 2/4: + high or low level of monitoring (permanent exclusion for first detected offence) 2/4/5: + temporary exclusion (for 5/10/15 time steps, permanently thereafter) 2/4/5/6: + dispute resolved if time between two offences > set amount of steps Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 14 / 19
  • 16. Experimental Results Iterate over agent population with active principles Example: 50% non-compliant, high monitoring, unintentional violation Primary observations Principles fit for purpose for enduring electronic institutions Sustainability (endurance and ‘fairness’) sensitive to congruence (trade-off cost vs. agent profiles) Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 15 / 19
  • 17. Self-Aware Institutions Leverage experimental outcome Experiments suggest design-time guidelines for self-organising institutions Codify the guidelines in same logical formalism Make the guidelines available at run-time for use by the components themselves One of the 5 dimensions of self-awareness measurement: for (self-)observation, exchange of information adaption: adapt behaviour/rules to optimise individual/collective performance invention: invent or discover new behaviour from introspection self-simulation: reason about ‘what if’ questions to justify choices systems of systems: understanding the hierarchy and interconnectedness of systems Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 16 / 19
  • 18. Applications of Self-Awareness Smarter Infrastructure Interleaving environmental awareness, specification space, executable specification of social rules, and social computational choice Specification Specification Infrastructure Prosumers Social Space Instance Network (Policy) Sensors Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 17 / 19
  • 19. Summary and Conclusions Summary Resource allocation in open systems can be considered from the perspective of CPR management The principles for enduring institutions can be given a uniform logical axiomatisation in an Action Language The axiomatisation can be used as the basis of an experimental testbed; experiments show that the same principles are necessary and sufficient conditions for sustainable electronic institutions Conclusions Inter-disciplinary research requires a well-found method Foundations for developing self-aware electronic institutions Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 18 / 19
  • 20. Acknowledgements Acknowledgements Joint work with Julia Schaumeier (Imperial College London) and Alexander Artikis (NCSR, Athens) FP Project AWARENESS FP7 257154 Jeremy Pitt Engineering Self-Organising and Self-Aware Electronic Institutions 19 / 19

×