Parent Directory
| 
Revision Log
Revision 1 - (view) (download) (as text)
| 1 : | mark | 1 | |
| 2 : | \chapter{Reasoning about $\mu$-promises} | ||
| 3 : | |||
| 4 : | |||
| 5 : | To secure a clear and consistent model of intent we must use formal | ||
| 6 : | methods, but what formalism do we have to express the necessary | ||
| 7 : | issues? Previous attempts to discuss the consistency of distributed | ||
| 8 : | policy have achieved varying degrees of success, but have ultimately | ||
| 9 : | fallen short of being useful tools except in rather limited arenas. | ||
| 10 : | For example: | ||
| 11 : | |||
| 12 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 13 : | \item Modal logics: these require one to formulate | ||
| 14 : | hypotheses that can be checked as true/false propositions. This is not | ||
| 15 : | the way system administrators work. | ||
| 16 : | |||
| 17 : | \item The $\pi$-calculus: has attractive features but focuses on issues | ||
| 18 : | that are too low-level for our main purposes. It describes systems in | ||
| 19 : | terms of states and transitions rather than policies (constraints | ||
| 20 : | about states)\cite{parrow1}. | ||
| 21 : | |||
| 22 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 23 : | |||
| 24 : | \section{Promise consistency and scope} | ||
| 25 : | |||
| 26 : | How can agent promises be inconsistent? Is a conflict of intention | ||
| 27 : | enough to speak of inconsistenct? In fact it is not, because we must | ||
| 28 : | deal with the problem of scope. Two agents might have conflicting | ||
| 29 : | intentions with respect to some imaginary higher purpose, but have no | ||
| 30 : | knowledge of each other or this imaginary purpose. | ||
| 31 : | |||
| 32 : | For example: A intends to have his son take over his trading business | ||
| 33 : | when he retires. A's son intends to go to college and become a | ||
| 34 : | scientist. A's wife intends to have him marry the daughter of a friend | ||
| 35 : | and work the land to support them. Are any of these intentions | ||
| 36 : | consistent or inconsistent? What imaginary goals does one measure such | ||
| 37 : | consistency against? | ||
| 38 : | |||
| 39 : | Promises may only be made by a specific agent, so a more careful | ||
| 40 : | question is to ask how can an agent be inconsistent in making its | ||
| 41 : | promises? At the extreme pole where every agent is independent and | ||
| 42 : | sees only see its own world, there would be no need to speak of | ||
| 43 : | inconsistency: unless agents have promised to behave in a similar | ||
| 44 : | fashion, they will do as they please. This is the property of a local | ||
| 45 : | theory. | ||
| 46 : | |||
| 47 : | \begin{lemma}[Locality or promises of the first kind] | ||
| 48 : | An agent cannot make an elementary promise (of the first kind) about | ||
| 49 : | any agent other than itself, or its own behaviour. | ||
| 50 : | \end{lemma} | ||
| 51 : | |||
| 52 : | A contradiction can still occur if a single agent promises two | ||
| 53 : | contradictory things. We call such a case incompatible or even broken | ||
| 54 : | promises. When all information is promised by (and hence localized in) a | ||
| 55 : | single agent, there is no need to go beyond that agent to look for | ||
| 56 : | inconsistencies. If a specific agent promises to marry and | ||
| 57 : | not to marry, then there is an obvious conflict. the locality means | ||
| 58 : | we only need to look in one place for this. | ||
| 59 : | |||
| 60 : | \begin{definition}[Inconsisent promises] | ||
| 61 : | A promise of | ||
| 62 : | $b_1$ from agent $A_1$ to agent $A_2$ is said to be inconsistent if there | ||
| 63 : | exists another promise from $A_1$ to $A_2$, of $b_2$, in which | ||
| 64 : | $b_1\not=b_2$. | ||
| 65 : | \end{definition} | ||
| 66 : | In the worst case, one could consider promising inconsistent promises | ||
| 67 : | to be a case of breaking both promises. | ||
| 68 : | This definition is very simple, and becomes most powerful when one | ||
| 69 : | identifies promise {\em types}. It | ||
| 70 : | implies that an agent can only break its own promises: if an agent | ||
| 71 : | promises two different things, it has broken both of its promises. | ||
| 72 : | |||
| 73 : | |||
| 74 : | \section{Indirection - a problem for deceptions} | ||
| 75 : | |||
| 76 : | We have said earlier that the promise body should not normally contain | ||
| 77 : | references to agents. When agents' names are absent from the promise | ||
| 78 : | body, the logic is very simple. This is a desirable property. | ||
| 79 : | |||
| 80 : | But there are promises that cannot be expressed like this. | ||
| 81 : | Some complicated promises can be made (like the transference of | ||
| 82 : | responsibility example in \cite{burgessdsom2005}). However there | ||
| 83 : | are cases where we cannot avoid referring to third parties. | ||
| 84 : | e.g. | ||
| 85 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 86 : | \item I promise I love you. | ||
| 87 : | \item I promise I do not love Mary. | ||
| 88 : | \item I promise Mary I do not love you. | ||
| 89 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 90 : | Or ``I promise to you not to promise X to Y'', etc. | ||
| 91 : | These levels of complexity must be built up step by step. | ||
| 92 : | |||
| 93 : | This problem cannot be avoided if we keep to the rule that the promise | ||
| 94 : | body may not refer to other agents, since one could reframe the promises | ||
| 95 : | to avoid mentioning by name and providing the data about ``whom I love'' | ||
| 96 : | as a service. | ||
| 97 : | |||
| 98 : | This matter can be resolved as incompatible promises. | ||
| 99 : | We need some kind of taxonomy of promises that are related and incompatible. | ||
| 100 : | Promises need to be classified into some kind of taxonomy/ontology | ||
| 101 : | in order to know when certain promises are incompatible. e.g. | ||
| 102 : | |||
| 103 : | ``I promise I love you'' | ||
| 104 : | |||
| 105 : | ``I promise Mary I don't love you'' | ||
| 106 : | |||
| 107 : | These are the same promise type. There is no impediment to promising this, but | ||
| 108 : | the result is, of course, necessarily a lie. | ||
| 109 : | |||
| 110 : | |||
| 111 : | \subsection{Di-graphs} | ||
| 112 : | |||
| 113 : | In our definition of lies, we made an unwarranted assumption. | ||
| 114 : | There is no probelm with the following: | ||
| 115 : | \beq | ||
| 116 : | \begin{array}{c} | ||
| 117 : | A_1 \promise{\pi} A_2\\ | ||
| 118 : | A_1 \promise{\neg \pi} A_3 | ||
| 119 : | \end{array} | ||
| 120 : | \eeq | ||
| 121 : | $A_1$ can promise constadictory things to different agents without | ||
| 122 : | making any contradiction, provided the promise body does not refer | ||
| 123 : | to agents. | ||
| 124 : | |||
| 125 : | \subsection{Tri-graphs} | ||
| 126 : | |||
| 127 : | This is a lie to either $A_2$ or $A_3$, i.e. the assertion of two or | ||
| 128 : | more inconsistent promises to a promisee, about the behaviour of | ||
| 129 : | promising agent towards either the promisee or towards a third-party. | ||
| 130 : | \beq | ||
| 131 : | \begin{array}{c} | ||
| 132 : | A_1 \promise{\rm Love~ you} A_2\\ | ||
| 133 : | A_1 \promise{\rm Don't~ love~ A_2} A_3 | ||
| 134 : | \end{array} | ||
| 135 : | \eeq | ||
| 136 : | |||
| 137 : | |||
| 138 : | \section{Promise analysis} | ||
| 139 : | |||
| 140 : | |||
| 141 : | Logic is a way of analysing the consistency of assumptions. It is | ||
| 142 : | based on the truth or falsity of collections of propositions | ||
| 143 : | $p_1,p_2,\ldots$. One must formulate these propositions in advance | ||
| 144 : | and then use a set of assumptions to determine their status. | ||
| 145 : | The advantage of logic is that is admits the concept of a proof. | ||
| 146 : | |||
| 147 : | Is there a logic that is suitable for analyzing promises? Modal logic | ||
| 148 : | has been considered as one possibility, and some authors have made | ||
| 149 : | progress in using modal logics in restricted | ||
| 150 : | models\cite{ortalo1,glasgow1}. However, there are basic problems with | ||
| 151 : | modal logics that limit their usefulness\cite{lupu2}. | ||
| 152 : | |||
| 153 : | More pragmatically, logic alone does not usually get us far in | ||
| 154 : | engineering. We do not usually want to say things like ``it is true | ||
| 155 : | that $1+1 = 2$''? Rather we want a system, giving true answers, which | ||
| 156 : | allows us to compute the value of $1+1$, because we do not know it in | ||
| 157 : | advance. | ||
| 158 : | Ultimately we would like such a calculational framework for combining | ||
| 159 : | the effects of multiple promises. Nevertheless, let us set aside such | ||
| 160 : | practical considerations for now, and consider the limitations of modal | ||
| 161 : | logical formalism in the | ||
| 162 : | presence of autonomy. | ||
| 163 : | |||
| 164 : | |||
| 165 : | \subsection{Modal Logic and Kripke Semantics} | ||
| 166 : | |||
| 167 : | Why have formalisms for finding inconsistent policies proven to be so | ||
| 168 : | difficult? A clue to what is going wrong lies in the many worlds | ||
| 169 : | interpretation of the modal logics\cite{modallogic}. | ||
| 170 : | In the modal logics, one makes propositions $p,q$ etc., which are | ||
| 171 : | either true or false, under certain interpretations. One then introduces | ||
| 172 : | modal operators that ascribe certain properties to those | ||
| 173 : | propositions, and one seeks a consistent language of such strings. | ||
| 174 : | |||
| 175 : | Modal operators are written in a variety of notations, most often with | ||
| 176 : | $\boxx$ or $\diamond$. Thus one can say $\boxx p$, meaning ``it is | ||
| 177 : | necessary that $p$ be true'', and variations on this theme: | ||
| 178 : | |||
| 179 : | \begin{center} | ||
| 180 : | \begin{tabular}{ll} | ||
| 181 : | \hline | ||
| 182 : | $\boxx p$ & $\diamond p = \neg \boxx \neg p$\\ | ||
| 183 : | \hline\hline | ||
| 184 : | It is necessary that $p$ & It is possible that $p$\\ | ||
| 185 : | It is obligatory that $p$ & It is allowed that $p$\\ | ||
| 186 : | It is always true that $p$ & It sometimes true that $p$\\ | ||
| 187 : | \end{tabular} | ||
| 188 : | \end{center} | ||
| 189 : | A system in which one classifies propositions into ``obligatory'', | ||
| 190 : | ``allowed'' and ``forbidden'' could easily seem to be a way to codify | ||
| 191 : | policy, and this notion has been | ||
| 192 : | explored\cite{ortalo1,glasgow1,deontic,lupu2}. | ||
| 193 : | |||
| 194 : | Well known difficulties in interpreting modal logics are dealt with using | ||
| 195 : | Kripke semantics\cite{kripke1}. | ||
| 196 : | Kripke introduced a `validity function' $v(p,w)\in\{T,F\}$, in which | ||
| 197 : | a proposition $p$ is classified as being either true of false in a specific | ||
| 198 : | `world' $w$. Worlds are usually collections of observers or agents in a system. | ||
| 199 : | |||
| 200 : | Consider the formulation of a logic of promises, starting with the | ||
| 201 : | idea of a `promise' operator. | ||
| 202 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 203 : | \item $\boxx p =$ it is promised that $p$ be true. | ||
| 204 : | \item $\diamond p = \neg\boxx\neg p =$ it is unspecified whether $p$ is true. | ||
| 205 : | \item $\boxx \neg p =$ it is promised that $p$ will not be true. | ||
| 206 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 207 : | and a validity function $v(\cdot,\cdot)$. | ||
| 208 : | |||
| 209 : | \subsection{Further problems with modal logic} | ||
| 210 : | |||
| 211 : | Some modal logics begin the with assumption of idempotence of the core | ||
| 212 : | operators. For example, one assumes that $\boxx\rightarrow | ||
| 213 : | \boxx p \boxx p $. Many justifications for this have been attempted; indeed, | ||
| 214 : | the left hand side can be phrased is several ways in English: | ||
| 215 : | |||
| 216 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 217 : | \item It is necessary that $p$ be necessary. | ||
| 218 : | \item $p$ is necessarily a necessity. | ||
| 219 : | \item It is required that $p$ be necessary. | ||
| 220 : | \item $p$ must be necessary. | ||
| 221 : | \item $p$ must be a requirement. | ||
| 222 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 223 : | In each of these cases, the truth of this relation (the necessity of | ||
| 224 : | necessity) seems to be simply false in a world of autonomous promises, | ||
| 225 : | thus we reject this form of reasoning, autonomously and voluntarily | ||
| 226 : | (see section \ref{invol}). | ||
| 227 : | |||
| 228 : | \subsection{Single promises} | ||
| 229 : | |||
| 230 : | A promise is usually shared between a sender and a recipient. It is | ||
| 231 : | not a property of agents, as in usual modal logics, but of a pair of | ||
| 232 : | agents. However, a promise has implications only directly on the behaviour of the | ||
| 233 : | promiser, not the promisee. | ||
| 234 : | |||
| 235 : | Consider the example of the Service Level Agreement, above, and let | ||
| 236 : | $p$ mean ``Will provide data in less than 10ms''. How shall we express | ||
| 237 : | the idea that a node $A_1$ promises a node $A_2$ this proposition? | ||
| 238 : | Consider the following statement: | ||
| 239 : | \beq | ||
| 240 : | \boxx p, ~~~v(p,A_1) = T. | ||
| 241 : | \eeq | ||
| 242 : | This means that it is true that $p$ is promised at node $A_1$, i.e. node 1 | ||
| 243 : | promises to provide data in less than 10ms -- but to whom? Clearly, we must also | ||
| 244 : | provide a recipient. Suppose, we try to include the recipient in the same world | ||
| 245 : | as the sender? i.e. | ||
| 246 : | \beq | ||
| 247 : | \boxx p, ~~~v(p,\{A_1,A_2\}) = T. | ||
| 248 : | \eeq | ||
| 249 : | However, this means that both nodes $A_1$ and $A_2$ promise to deliver data | ||
| 250 : | in less than 10ms. This is not what we need; a recipient is still unspecified. | ||
| 251 : | Clearly what we want is to define promises on a different set of worlds: the | ||
| 252 : | set of possible links or {\em edges} between nodes. There are $N(N-1)$ such directed links. | ||
| 253 : | Thus, we may write: | ||
| 254 : | \beq | ||
| 255 : | \boxx p, ~~~ v(p,A_1\rightarrow A_2)=T. | ||
| 256 : | \eeq | ||
| 257 : | This is now a unique one-way assertion about a promise from one agent | ||
| 258 : | to another. A promise becomes a tuple $\langle \tau,p,\ell\rangle$, | ||
| 259 : | where $\tau$ is a theme or promise-type (e.g. Web service), $p$ is a | ||
| 260 : | proposition (e.g.deliver data in less than 10ms) about how behaviour | ||
| 261 : | is to be constrained, and $\ell$ is a link or edge over which the | ||
| 262 : | promise is to be kept. All policies can be written this way, by | ||
| 263 : | inventing fictitious services. Also, since every autonomous promise will | ||
| 264 : | have this form, the modal/semantic content is trivial and a simplified | ||
| 265 : | notation could be used. | ||
| 266 : | |||
| 267 : | \subsection{Regional or collective promises from Kripke semantics?} | ||
| 268 : | |||
| 269 : | Kripke structures suggest ways of defining regions over which promises | ||
| 270 : | might be consistently defined, and hence a way of making uniform policies. | ||
| 271 : | For example, a way of unifying two agents $A_1$, $A_2$ with a | ||
| 272 : | common policy, would be for them both to make the same promise to a | ||
| 273 : | third party $A_3$: | ||
| 274 : | \beq | ||
| 275 : | \boxx p, ~~~ v(p,\{ A_1\rightarrow A_3,A_2\rightarrow A_3 \})=T. | ||
| 276 : | \eeq | ||
| 277 : | |||
| 278 : | However, there is a fundamental flaw in this thinking. The existence | ||
| 279 : | of such a function that unifies links, originating from more than a | ||
| 280 : | single agent-node, is contrary to the fundamental assumption of | ||
| 281 : | autonomy. There is no authority in this picture that has the ability | ||
| 282 : | to assert this uniformity of policy. Thus, while it might occur by | ||
| 283 : | fortuitous coincidence that $p$ is true over a collection of links, we | ||
| 284 : | are not permitted to {\em specify} it or demand it. Each source-node | ||
| 285 : | has to make up its own mind. The logic verifies, but it is not a tool | ||
| 286 : | for understanding construction. | ||
| 287 : | |||
| 288 : | What is required is a rule-based construction that allows independent agents to come | ||
| 289 : | together and form structures that span several nodes, by {\em | ||
| 290 : | voluntary cooperation}. Such an agreement has to be made between | ||
| 291 : | every pair of nodes involved in the cooperative structure. We summarize this | ||
| 292 : | with the following: | ||
| 293 : | |||
| 294 : | \begin{figure}[ht] | ||
| 295 : | \begin{center} | ||
| 296 : | \includegraphics[width=5cm]{figs/coop2} | ||
| 297 : | %\psfig{file=coop2.eps,width=9cm} | ||
| 298 : | \caption{\small (Left) Cooperation and the use of third parties to measure the equivalence of agent-nodes in a region. Agents form groups and roles by agreeing to cooperate about policy. (Right) This is how the | ||
| 299 : | overlapping file-in-directory rule problem appears in terms of promises to | ||
| 300 : | an external agent. An explicit broken promise is asserted by file, | ||
| 301 : | in spite of agreements to form a cooperative structure.\label{pmm}} | ||
| 302 : | \end{center} | ||
| 303 : | \end{figure} | ||
| 304 : | \begin{assume}[Cooperative promise rule] | ||
| 305 : | For two agents to guarantee the same promise, one | ||
| 306 : | requires a special type of promise: the promise to cooperate with | ||
| 307 : | neighbouring agent-nodes, about basic promise themes. | ||
| 308 : | \end{assume} | ||
| 309 : | A complete structure looks like this: | ||
| 310 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 311 : | \item $A_1$ promises $p$ to $A_3$. | ||
| 312 : | \item $A_2$ promises $A_1$ to collaborate about $p$ (denote this as a promise $C(p)$). | ||
| 313 : | \item $A_1$ promises $A_2$ to collaborate about $p$ (denote this as a promise $C(p)$). | ||
| 314 : | \item $A_2$ promises $p$ to $A_3$ | ||
| 315 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 316 : | By measuring $p$ from both $A_1$ and $A_2$, $A_3$ acts as a judge of | ||
| 317 : | their compliance with the mutual agreements between them (see | ||
| 318 : | fig. \ref{pmm}). This allows the basis of a theory of measurement, by third | ||
| 319 : | party monitors, in | ||
| 320 : | collaborative networks. It also shows how to properly define | ||
| 321 : | structures in the file-directory example (see fig \ref{pmm}). | ||
| 322 : | |||
| 323 : | |||
| 324 : | \subsection{Example: dependencies and handshakes} | ||
| 325 : | |||
| 326 : | Even networks of autonomous agents have to collaborate and delegate | ||
| 327 : | tasks, depending on one another to fulfill promised services. An | ||
| 328 : | important matter is to either find a way of expressing dependency | ||
| 329 : | relationships without violating the primary assumption of autonomy, or | ||
| 330 : | prove that it cannot be done\endnote{In nearly all cases agents are working | ||
| 331 : | without irresistable forces guiding them, so the prospect of not being | ||
| 332 : | able to express cooperative tasks as voluntary autonomous cooperation has | ||
| 333 : | to be regarded as contrived to begin with. We claim it is `intuitively obvious' | ||
| 334 : | that anything that can be achieve by force can also be achieved willingly.}. | ||
| 335 : | |||
| 336 : | Consider three agents $A_1,A_2,A_3$, a database server, a web server and | ||
| 337 : | a client. We imagine that the client obtains a web service from the web server, | ||
| 338 : | which, in turn, gets its data from a database. | ||
| 339 : | Define propositions and validities: | ||
| 340 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 341 : | \item $p_1 =$ ``will send database data in less than 5ms'', $v(p_1,A_1\rightarrow A_2)=T$. | ||
| 342 : | \item $p_2 =$ ``will send web data in less than 10 ms'', $v(p_2,A_2\rightarrow A_3)=T$. | ||
| 343 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 344 : | These two promises might, at first, appear to define a collaboration between the | ||
| 345 : | two servers to provide a promise of service to the client, but they do not. | ||
| 346 : | |||
| 347 : | The promise to serve data from $A_1 \rightarrow A_2$ is in no way connected to the | ||
| 348 : | promise to deliver data from $A_2\rightarrow A_3$: | ||
| 349 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 350 : | \item $A_2$ has no obligation to use the data promised by $A_1$. | ||
| 351 : | \item $A_2$ promises its web service regardless of what $A_1$ promises. | ||
| 352 : | \item Neither $A_1$ nor $A_3$ can force $A_2$ to act as a conduit for database and client. | ||
| 353 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 354 : | |||
| 355 : | We have already established that it would not help to extend the | ||
| 356 : | validity function to try to group the three nodes into a Kripke | ||
| 357 : | `world'. Rather, what is needed is a structure that | ||
| 358 : | complete the backwards promises to {\em utilize} promised | ||
| 359 : | services -- promises that completes a {\em handshake} between the | ||
| 360 : | autonomous agents. We require: | ||
| 361 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 362 : | \item A promise to uphold $p_1$ from $A_1\rightarrow A_2$. | ||
| 363 : | \item An acceptance promise, to use the promised data from $A_2\rightarrow A_1$. | ||
| 364 : | \item A conditional promise from $A_2\rightarrow A_3$ to uphold $p_2$ iff $p_1$ is both present and accepted. | ||
| 365 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 366 : | |||
| 367 : | \subsection{Acceptance} | ||
| 368 : | |||
| 369 : | |||
| 370 : | We have deduced that three components are required to make a dependent promise. | ||
| 371 : | This requirement cannot be derived logically; rather, we must | ||
| 372 : | specify it as part of the semantics of autonomy. | ||
| 373 : | |||
| 374 : | \begin{axiom}[Acceptance or utilization promise rule] | ||
| 375 : | Autonomy requires an agent to explicitly accept a | ||
| 376 : | promise that has been made, when it will be used to derive a dependent promise. | ||
| 377 : | \end{axiom} | ||
| 378 : | We thus identify a second special type of promise: the ``usage'' or ``acceptance'' promise | ||
| 379 : | that we discuss in the next chapter. This is a promise to receive so it falls into the | ||
| 380 : | class of promise bodies denoted $-b$. | ||
| 381 : | |||
| 382 : | What use is this construction? First, it advances the manifesto of | ||
| 383 : | atomicity, making making all policy decisions explicit. The | ||
| 384 : | construction has two implications: | ||
| 385 : | \begin{enumerate} | ||
| 386 : | \item The component atoms (promises) are all visible, so | ||
| 387 : | the inconsistencies of a larger policy | ||
| 388 : | can be determined by the presence or absence of a specific link | ||
| 389 : | in the labelled graph of promises, according to the rules. | ||
| 390 : | \item One can provide basic recipes (handshakes etc.) for building concensus and | ||
| 391 : | agent ``societies'', without hiding assumptions. This is | ||
| 392 : | important in pervasive computing, where agents truly are politically | ||
| 393 : | autonomous and every promise must be explicit. | ||
| 394 : | \end{enumerate} | ||
| 395 : | The one issue that we have not discussed is the question of how | ||
| 396 : | cooperative agreements are arrived at. This is a question that has | ||
| 397 : | been discussed in the context of cooperative game | ||
| 398 : | theory\cite{sirisane,axelrod1}, and will be elaborated on in a future | ||
| 399 : | paper\cite{siri2}. Once again, it has to do with the human aspect of | ||
| 400 : | collaboration. The reader can excerise imagination in introducing | ||
| 401 : | fictitious, intermediate agents to deal with issues such as shared | ||
| 402 : | memory and resources. | ||
| 403 : | |||
| 404 : | |||
| 405 : | \subsection{Temporal behaviour} | ||
| 406 : | |||
| 407 : | As an addendum to this discussion, consider {\em temporal logic}: this | ||
| 408 : | is a branch of modal logic, in which an agent evolves from one Kripke | ||
| 409 : | world into another, according to a causal sequence, which normally | ||
| 410 : | represents time. In temporal logic, each new time-step is a new | ||
| 411 : | Kripke world, and the truth or falsity of propositions can span | ||
| 412 : | sequences of worlds, forming graph-like structures. Although time is | ||
| 413 : | not important in {\em declaring} policy, it is worth asking whether a logic | ||
| 414 : | based on a graph of worlds could be used to discuss the collaborative | ||
| 415 : | aspects of policy. Indeed, some authors have proposed using temporal | ||
| 416 : | logic and derivative formalisms to discuss the behaviour of policy, and | ||
| 417 : | modelling the evolution systems in interesting ways\cite{bandara1,bandara2,lafuente1}. | ||
| 418 : | |||
| 419 : | The basic objection to thinking in these terms is, once again, | ||
| 420 : | autonomy. In temporal logic, one must basically know the way in which | ||
| 421 : | the propositions will evolve with time, i.e. across the entire ordered | ||
| 422 : | graph. That presupposes that such a structure can be written down by | ||
| 423 : | an authority for the every world; it supposes the existence of a global | ||
| 424 : | evolution operator, or master plan for the agents in a network. | ||
| 425 : | No such structure exists, {\em a priori}. It remains an open question | ||
| 426 : | whether causality is relevant to policy specification. | ||
| 427 : | |||
| 428 : | |||
| 429 : | |||
| 430 : | \subsection{Interlopers: transference of responsibility}\label{interxx} | ||
| 431 : | |||
| 432 : | |||
| 433 : | One of the difficult problems of policy consistency is in | ||
| 434 : | transferring responsibilities from one agent to another: when an agent acts | ||
| 435 : | as as a conduit or interloper for another. Consider agents $a$, $b$ and $c$, | ||
| 436 : | and suppose that $b$ has a resource $B$ which it can promise to others. | ||
| 437 : | How might $b$ express to $a$: ``You may have access to $B$, but do not pass it on | ||
| 438 : | to $c$''? | ||
| 439 : | |||
| 440 : | \begin{figure}[ht] | ||
| 441 : | \includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/interloper} | ||
| 442 : | %\psfig{file=interloper.eps,width=8cm} | ||
| 443 : | \caption{\small Transference of responsibility.\label{interloper}} | ||
| 444 : | \end{figure} | ||
| 445 : | |||
| 446 : | The difficulty in this promise is that the promise itself refers to a third party, | ||
| 447 : | and this mixes link-worlds with constraints. | ||
| 448 : | As a single promise, this desire is not implementable in the proposed scheme: | ||
| 449 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 450 : | \item It refers to $B$, which $a$ has no access to, or prior knowledge of. | ||
| 451 : | \item If refers to a potential promise from $a$ to $c$, which is unspecified. | ||
| 452 : | \item It preempts a promise from $a$ to $b$ to never give $B$ along $a\rightarrow c$. | ||
| 453 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 454 : | There is a straightforward resolution that maintains the autonomy | ||
| 455 : | of the nodes, the principle of separation between nodes and | ||
| 456 : | constraints, and which makes the roles of the three parties | ||
| 457 : | explicit. We note that node $b$ cannot order node $a$ to do | ||
| 458 : | anything. Rather, the agents must set up an agreement about their | ||
| 459 : | wishes. This also reveals that fact that the original promise is | ||
| 460 : | vague and inconsistent, in the first instance, since $b$ never | ||
| 461 : | promises that it will not give $B$ to $c$ itself. | ||
| 462 : | The solution requires a cooperative agreement (see fig. \ref{interloper}). | ||
| 463 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 464 : | \item First we must give $a$ access to $B$ by setting up the handshake promises: | ||
| 465 : | i) from $b\rightarrow a$, ``send B'', ii) from $a\rightarrow b$, accept/use ``send B''. | ||
| 466 : | \item Then $b$ must make a consistent promise not to send $B$ from $b\rightarrow c$, by promising ``not $B$'' along this link. | ||
| 467 : | \item Finally, $a$ promises $b$ to cooperate with $b$'s promises about ``not $B$'', by promising | ||
| 468 : | to cooperate with ``not $B$'' along $a\rightarrow b$. | ||
| 469 : | This implies the dotted line in the figure that it | ||
| 470 : | will obey an equivalent promise ``not $B$'' from $a\rightarrow c$, which | ||
| 471 : | could also be made explicit. | ||
| 472 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 473 : | At first glance, this might seem like a lot of work for express a | ||
| 474 : | simple sentence. The benefit of the construction, however, it that is | ||
| 475 : | preserves the basic principles of make every promise explicit, and | ||
| 476 : | separating agents-nodes from their intentions. This will be crucial | ||
| 477 : | to avoiding the contradictions and ambiguities of other schemes. | ||
| 478 : | |||
| 479 : | |||
| 480 : | \section{Modal logic and reinterpretation using promises}\label{invol} | ||
| 481 : | |||
| 482 : | The usual formulation of modal logical in terms of necessity is | ||
| 483 : | unnecessarily fuzzy, even to the point of being incorrect. The | ||
| 484 : | language of promises helps to clarify what is going on here. | ||
| 485 : | |||
| 486 : | The problem lies in the semantics of the most basic assumptions about | ||
| 487 : | necessity. The rule that $\boxx p \rightarrow \boxx\boxx p$ is pure | ||
| 488 : | nonsense if $\boxx$ means necessity. It is not at all necessary that | ||
| 489 : | things be necessary. One can choose `requirements' which is a | ||
| 490 : | voluntary act about things defined to be necessary. Conversely, one | ||
| 491 : | can mandate a voluntary choice in a multiple choice exam. Thus the | ||
| 492 : | common language interpretation is simply wrong. However, all is not lost. | ||
| 493 : | |||
| 494 : | Consider a reinterpretation of these quantities as follows: | ||
| 495 : | \begin{center} | ||
| 496 : | \begin{tabular}{ll} | ||
| 497 : | \hline | ||
| 498 : | $\boxx p$ & $V p = \neg \boxx p$\\ | ||
| 499 : | \hline\hline | ||
| 500 : | $p$ is involuntary & $p$ is voluntary\\ | ||
| 501 : | \end{tabular} | ||
| 502 : | \end{center} | ||
| 503 : | Involuntary acts are made by an irresistable force, so we we are led | ||
| 504 : | to the need to speak of forces that are beyond an agent's | ||
| 505 : | control. However, every one of the following possibilities might be | ||
| 506 : | true in some circumstances: | ||
| 507 : | |||
| 508 : | \begin{itemize} | ||
| 509 : | \item $\boxx \boxx p$: it was forced upon the agent to make $p$ involuntarily true (coercion). | ||
| 510 : | \item $V \boxx p$: the agent chose to make $p$ involuntarily true (discipline). | ||
| 511 : | \item $\boxx V p$: the agent was forced to make $p$ a voluntarily choice (authority). | ||
| 512 : | \item $V V p$: the agent chose to make $p$ a voluntarily choice (decision). | ||
| 513 : | \end{itemize} | ||
| 514 : | |||
| 515 : | To handle this case, one can imagine making a proposition $p$ partially voluntary, | ||
| 516 : | so that it consists of a voluntary (promised) part $p_v$ and an involuntary | ||
| 517 : | part $p_\boxx$: | ||
| 518 : | \beq | ||
| 519 : | p &=& p_v \;\union\; p_\boxx - p_vp_\boxx\\ | ||
| 520 : | \boxx p &=& p_\boxx\\ | ||
| 521 : | V p &=& p_v | ||
| 522 : | \eeq | ||
| 523 : | Then we can say | ||
| 524 : | \beq | ||
| 525 : | p_v \; \intersect\; p_\boxx &=& \emptyset\\ | ||
| 526 : | V p \; \intersect\; \boxx p &=& \emptyset. | ||
| 527 : | \eeq | ||
| 528 : | |||
| 529 : | |||
| 530 : | \section{Promise graphs} | ||
| 531 : | |||
| 532 : | The formulation of $\mu$-promises in the previous chapter has the | ||
| 533 : | obvious characteristics of a network, or in graph theoretical terms a | ||
| 534 : | so-called {\em directed graph} (a network of arrows). This is not a | ||
| 535 : | particularly novel or unusual construction\endnote{Micropromises bear | ||
| 536 : | a passing resemblance to the theory of capabilities in | ||
| 537 : | ref. \cite{snyder1}}; many phenomena form such networks. However, its | ||
| 538 : | commonality is a powerful identification of its ubiquity, and this | ||
| 539 : | feature of promises will allow us to draw in many important insights | ||
| 540 : | that have been made about networks in later chapters. For example, | ||
| 541 : | directedness in graphs display the intricacies of {\em causation}: the | ||
| 542 : | ordering of multi-agent phenomena. | ||
| 543 : | |||
| 544 : | When a single agents makes a collection of promises to other agents, | ||
| 545 : | some of these can be simplified or replaced by a single promise. | ||
| 546 : | There can also be cases in which we attribute special meaning | ||
| 547 : | (semantics) to particular combinations of promises, thus we begin | ||
| 548 : | by discussing the basics of composition. | ||
| 549 : | |||
| 550 : | |||
| 551 : | \section{The use promise is not primitive} | ||
| 552 : | |||
| 553 : | The use-promise we have | ||
| 554 : | referred to so far cannot be primitive promise type, since it includes | ||
| 555 : | implicit information about the promise. We can express this by defining: | ||
| 556 : | \beq | ||
| 557 : | U(b) \equiv -\psi(b) \with \Upsilon(b). | ||
| 558 : | \eeq | ||
| 559 : | i.e. | ||
| 560 : | \begin{quotation} | ||
| 561 : | \begin{center} | ||
| 562 : | Use $\equiv$ knowledge of content $\with$ intention to employ content | ||
| 563 : | \end{center} | ||
| 564 : | \end{quotation} | ||
| 565 : | where $\Upsilon(b)$ is the primitive promise to act on an unconditional promise $\pi(b)$ | ||
| 566 : | that it has (necessarily) received directly. | ||
| 567 : | |||
| 568 : | |||
| 569 : | |||
| 570 : | |||
| 571 : | \section{Transactions and duality}\label{not_duality} | ||
| 572 : | |||
| 573 : | Each promise graph, classified in terms of $+$ and $-$ promise types | ||
| 574 : | has at least two dual or complementary viewpoints. | ||
| 575 : | |||
| 576 : | \subsection{Complementarity: Intent vs Implementation} | ||
| 577 : | |||
| 578 : | The first concerns the duality between planning and implementation, | ||
| 579 : | or declarative and imperative forms of a plan. | ||
| 580 : | We can see this as in fig. \ref{duality}. | ||
| 581 : | |||
| 582 : | \begin{figure}[ht] | ||
| 583 : | \begin{center} | ||
| 584 : | \includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/duality} | ||
| 585 : | %\psfig{file=serial.eps,width=4.5cm} | ||
| 586 : | \caption{Alternative interpretations of a service interaction, in terms of | ||
| 587 : | a service or transport.\label{duality}} | ||
| 588 : | \end{center} | ||
| 589 : | \end{figure} | ||
| 590 : | |||
| 591 : | In the service view (a), the service provider takes ultimate responsibilty | ||
| 592 : | by making a promise directly to the end reader, but it is a promise | ||
| 593 : | conditional on the behaviour of the post office whose role is to | ||
| 594 : | deliver the book. The positive aspect of this view is that it reflects | ||
| 595 : | the reality of the trading interaction. The post office is merely an | ||
| 596 : | assistant (see section \ref{assistance}). This is a version of | ||
| 597 : | causation in which the original intention is the driver for events. | ||
| 598 : | |||
| 599 : | In the transport view (b), we model this more closely related to the | ||
| 600 : | physical implementation of the promise. The service provider | ||
| 601 : | (bookshop) promises to pass the book to the post office, who in turn | ||
| 602 : | promises the reader to deliver it, assuming that it gets the book in | ||
| 603 : | the first place. This is a version of causation in which transactions | ||
| 604 : | leading to fulfillment of the promise are in focus. | ||
| 605 : | |||
| 606 : | In our view, the first of these is a more accurate representation of | ||
| 607 : | the scenario, as it provides a deeper explanation for the events that | ||
| 608 : | happen to transpire, and it places the end points of the service delivery in a | ||
| 609 : | direct relationship with one another. | ||
| 610 : | |||
| 611 : | |||
| 612 : | \subsection{Causation and time-reversal symmetry}\label{loops} | ||
| 613 : | |||
| 614 : | Consider fig. \ref{timereversal} in its two incarnations. The | ||
| 615 : | left and right hand versions tell exactly the same story, with | ||
| 616 : | structually identical graphs, yet the $+$ and $-$ signs have | ||
| 617 : | been reversed. The re-interpretation suggests (but does not prove) | ||
| 618 : | that the reversal that takes place is the agent initiating the | ||
| 619 : | relationship. It is often natural to assume that a $+$ promise | ||
| 620 : | must come before a use-promise to make use of it. However, this | ||
| 621 : | shows that no such rule is necessarily the case, as by renaming the | ||
| 622 : | promises, we achieve the opposite result\endnote{Indeed, we | ||
| 623 : | could interpret an initial promise to use a service as signalling a | ||
| 624 : | request for a service (like placing an advertisement).}. | ||
| 625 : | |||
| 626 : | \begin{figure}[ht] | ||
| 627 : | \begin{center} | ||
| 628 : | \includegraphics[width=12cm]{figs/timereversal} | ||
| 629 : | %\psfig{file=serial.eps,width=4.5cm} | ||
| 630 : | \caption{Alternative interpretations of a service interaction, in who initiates | ||
| 631 : | the transaction.\label{timereversal}} | ||
| 632 : | \end{center} | ||
| 633 : | \end{figure} | ||
| 634 : | |||
| 635 : | This insight is part of a general symmetry in transacations between | ||
| 636 : | giver and receiver. | ||
| 637 : | |||
| 638 : | The symmetry between $\pm$ promises is a fundamental one, what | ||
| 639 : | physicists would call {\em time reversal symmetry}, or the lack of an | ||
| 640 : | `arrow of time', in this case `who goes first'. Such is it with all | ||
| 641 : | physical laws and mathematical expressions of change that there is no | ||
| 642 : | implied direction to these causative arrows initially. It is up to the | ||
| 643 : | analyst to break the symmetry by specifying a {\em boundary condition} | ||
| 644 : | (or, in this case, initial condition), which manifestly breaks the | ||
| 645 : | symmetry by deciding a given point at which we have certain knowledge | ||
| 646 : | of the system concerned and in which direction from this milestone the | ||
| 647 : | predictions (promises) of behaviour take us from that point. | ||
| 648 : | |||
| 649 : | We should not assume anything about which agent makes or keeps a | ||
| 650 : | promise first, simply from the structure of the graph. Additional | ||
| 651 : | information is needed to specify the direction of causation. | ||
| 652 : | |||
| 653 : | |||
| 654 : | |||
| 655 : | |||
| 656 : | |||
| 657 : |
| Administrator | ViewVC Help |
| Powered by ViewVC 1.0.3 |