Towards a Computational Model of Normative Awareness

As software agents are being employed in more complex situations, experimental findings in the social sciences are becoming increasingly relevant to the computational sciences. The social scientific concept of situation awareness is now being utilized to quantify the success of an agent’s environmental perceptual comprehension and causative processing. In this paper, we suggest that awareness of one’s situation is not sufficient to succeed in navigating the growing complexity of agent-based social interactions. In human societies norms (personal, legal, and social) have emerged as multi-faceted mechanisms for prescriptive pressures projected onto individual’s beliefs and intentionality. Here we define the term normative awareness as the perceptual comprehension of norms and the prediction of the causative effect of actions on norms. In this paper, we suggest that such awareness of the creation and perpetuation of norms would prove advantageous to agent-based research and review to what extent the multi-agent system literature has implicitly utilized the concept of normative awareness. We recognize that a ubiquitous merger of the vernacular between the social and computational sciences is unnecessary, as such, we discuss when and how normative awareness should be extended to agent-based modelling and multi-agent systems. 1 A Case for Modelling Normative Awareness Situation awareness, which includes perceptual processing, comprehension, and causative predictions [21], is a foundational skill in generating useful human action selection mechanisms. Recently, this concept has been projected onto the study of computational agents (see [39, 28, 29] for example), permitting quantified measurements of awareness, and thus opening a dialogue of the utility therein. However, the instantiation of multiple agents within the computational arena may lead to further complexities than those described in the situational awareness literature. Thus, we define a new term, normative awareness as projected onto the situation awareness definition, as the perceptual processing, comprehension, and causative predictions of norms. The social interactions inherent in multi-agent systems generate normative complexities analogous to those described in the social sciences. Rather than perceiving a situation and processing the potential consequences of an action in isolation, agent’s performance is increased through deftly navigating social nuances. Historically, humans have employed norms (personal, social and legal) in manoeuvring the complexities of social interactions. Successful navigation has thus been aided by awareness of the propensity of others to ascribe to such norms, as well as a prediction of the beliefs and inten1 University of Bath, UK, email: p.rauwolf@bath.ac.uk 2 CRESS, University of Surrey, UK, email: t.balke@surrey.ac.uk 3 University of Bath, UK, email: mdv@cs.bath.ac.uk tionality of others. It has even been argued that avoiding sanctions, weeding out defectors, and the emergence of cooperation could be linked to society’s tendency to instantiate and navigate norms[33]. We suggest, that as situation awareness is being employed in the agent-based literature, so too should normative awareness. We argue that agent awareness of normative underpinnings are sufficiently unique to situational awareness as to warrant a separate definition. Rather than simply processing environmental data, normative awareness employs a limited version of Theory of Mind [7], in that agent’s are aware that other agent’s possess awareness, intentionality, and beliefs. We argue that this definition transcends that of situation awareness, and that a dialogue surrounding the benefits of normatively aware agents will prove useful in grounding future agent-based research. To justify this postulation, in Section 2 we first present a brief introduction into the social science and computational literature regarding situation awareness. Next, in Section 3, we define normative awareness in reference to situation awareness. We approach this in a multi-faceted way. In characterizing normative awareness, the semantic ideology of norms is considered, since awareness of norms begs a definition of norms. The definition, utility, creation, and perpetuation of norms (within the social sciences) are thus inspected, and while debate continues, a broad spectrum of arguments are considered. The goal is not to cement a rigid criteria for norms, but rather to discuss the breadth of research in order to (i) augment the grounding of future computational instantiations of norms in theory, and (ii) aid in unifying the vernacular between the two disciplines. Upon exploring norms and situation awareness, we propose a definition of normative awareness, which amalgamates the two concepts. Section 4 reviews the existing agent-based literature regarding normative awareness. We also discuss the gaps in usage between the social sciences and the computational sciences, and discuss whether these gaps need to be closed or not.Finally, in Section 5 we conclude our discussion with a summary and an agenda for future research. 2 Situation Awareness Situation awareness (SA) has a history of use within military aviation vernacular, dating back to World War I [22]. More recently the term has been utilized within the social [37] and computational sciences [28, 39]. As this paper juxtaposes normative awareness to situation awareness, in this section we will discuss the idea of SA in more detail. We in particular focus on the work of Mica Endsley, who is well known for her work on SA and who defines SA as follows: Situation Awareness perception of the elements of the environment within the volume of time and space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status in the near future [21]. Based on this definition, Endsley develops a three-layer hierarchical structure which is often referenced when discussing SA [22]: Level 1: perception of the elements in the environment. This is the identification of the key elements or “events” that, in combination, serve to define the situation. This level tags key elements of the situation semantically for higher levels of abstraction in subsequent processing. Level 2: comprehension of the current situation. This is the combination of level 1 events into a comprehensive holistic pattern, or tactical situation. This level serves to define the current status in operationally relevant terms in support of rapid decision making and action. Level 3: projection of future status. This is the projection of the current situation into the future in an attempt to predict the evolution of the tactical situation. This level supports short-term planning and option evaluation when time permits. Endsley’s hierarchical nature of the SA theory has lent itself well to the computational sciences, permitting the awareness of an agent to be discussed in a grounded way. The notion has been utilized in coordinating agents operating within service based systems [39], as well as formally quantifying the awareness of an agent via its ability to complete truth tables in a particular context [28]. Additionally, situation awareness has been employed in the creation of military tactical plans through agent-based modelling [29]. However, as much as increasing SA augments predictive ability for potential actions, it does not offer a holistic theory to guide action selection mechanisms. When one is highly situationally aware, one accurately perceives and comprehends the environmental context. This permits veracious projection of the consequences of a given action. But, what action will be selected? What is one’s motive? Social theorist Paul Stern argues that situation awareness is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social movement [36]. He suggests that the motivational impetus to act often portrays itself as a sense of obligation, or a personal norm. This presence of norms as motivational factors in human and multi-agent societies may complicate the notion of awareness. Should an agent be aware of normative societal underpinnings? If the awareness of norms enhances the ability to project future status, does such a notion fall under the banner of situational awareness? In the next section we discuss the definition of norms, and in that attempt to diagnose the utility of diverging the definitions of situational and normative awareness within multi-agent systems. 3 Normative Awareness in the Social Sciences 3.1 Definition of Normative Awareness If Endsley’s situation awareness theory is projected onto norms, then normative awareness is the (i) perception of norms, (ii) comprehension of norms, and (iii) ability to predict future system states given norms. However, this definition is unsatisfactory without semantic cohesion. What is a norm? Can awareness of norms be implemented as a subset of situation awareness? Is a norm a situation? To answer these, first, we will describe the breadth of the social scientific usage of the term “norm”. Next, we will briefly discuss theories on the creation and perpetuation of norms. In the end we will present an argument that while Level 1 and 2 situation and normative awareness may prove indistinct, it is only in understanding an agent’s effect on the norm that an agent will attain level three awareness, future projection. It is postulated that level three normative awareness requires at least a limited version of theory of mind, in that the agent must predict motivation’s and actions of other agent’s based on their goals and beliefs. 3.2 Definition of Norm Before delving into the nuances of normative literature, it may prove useful to reiterate our intention. In discussing social science’s utilization of the term norm, our goal is not to reach a conclusion on a definition still debated or to get mired in a semantic argument. Rather, in articulating the breadth of the terminology it may yield the knowledge requisite to deliberate up