Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On Value-Aligned Cooperative Multi-agent Task Allocation

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Value Engineering in Artificial Intelligence (VALE 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 14520))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 280 Accesses

Abstract

Ensuring trustworthy AI and adopting value-aware systems with ethical principles are essential for the harmonious coexistence of humans and intelligent systems. This paper proposes a value-aligned cooperative multi-agent task allocation model for a cooperative whose members jointly own and operate the organization, working towards common goals. The proposed approach instantiates human values into ethical and moral norms. We focus on value awareness through introducing ethical values like justice and fairness into a mathematical programming model for near-optimal multi-agent task allocation. Key performance indicators are modeled using diverse measures in the task sharing context. A simple use-case example demonstrates how value awareness integrates into a decision support system for multi-agent task allocation in a cooperative agri-robot fleet context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. values, pl. n. Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/values. Accessed 21 July 2023

  2. A.: Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission, Brussels (2019). https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. Accessed 03 May 2023

  3. Bauer, W.A.: Virtuous vs. utilitarian artificial moral agents. AI Soc. 35(1), 263–271 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brosch, T., Sander, D.: Handbook of Value: Perspectives from Economics, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology and Sociology. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Centeno, R., Billhardt, H., Hermoso, R., Ossowski, S.: Organising mas: a formal model based on organisational mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2009. ACM (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1529282.1529438

  6. Cousy, K., Lujak, M., Salvatore, A., Fernández, A., Giordani, S.: On balancing fairness and efficiency of task assignment in agent societies. In: González-Briones, A., et al. (eds.) PAAMS 2022. CCIS, vol. 1678, pp. 95–107. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18697-4_8

    Google Scholar 

  7. Criado, N., Argente, E., Botti, V.: Open issues for normative multi-agent systems. AI Commun. 24(3), 233–264 (2011)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Curto, G., Montes, N., Comim, F., Osman, N., Sierra, C.: A norm optimisation approach to SDGs: tackling poverty by acting on discrimination. In: 31st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2022, pp. 5228–5235. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dyrkolbotn, S., Pedersen, T., Slavkovik, M.: On the distinction between implicit and explicit ethical agency. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pp. 74–80 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fici, A.: Cooperative identity and the law. Eur. Bus. Law Rev. 24(1), 37–64 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fischer, E., Qaim, M.: Smallholder farmers and collective action: what determines the intensity of participation? J. Agric. Econ. 65(3), 683–702 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Formosa, P., Ryan, M.: Making moral machines: why we need artificial moral agents. AI Soc. 36, 839–851 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Friedman, B., Hendry, D.G.: Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination. MIT Press, Cambridge (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Friedman, B., Kahn, P.H., Borning, A., Huldtgren, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Doorn, N., Schuurbiers, D., van de Poel, I., Gorman, M. (eds.) Early Engagement and New Technologies: Opening Up the Laboratory. POET, vol. 16, pp. 55–95. Springer, Dordrecht (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7844-3_4

    Google Scholar 

  15. Han, S., Kelly, E., Nikou, S., Svee, E.O.: Aligning artificial intelligence with human values: reflections from a phenomenological perspective. AI Soc. 37, 1383–1395 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hansson, S.O.: The Structure of Values and Norms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harper, S.J.: Ethics versus morality: a problematic divide. Philos. Soc. Criticism 35(9), 1063–1077 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hogan, A., et al.: Knowledge graphs. ACM Comput. Surv. 54(4), 1–37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3447772

    Google Scholar 

  19. Horner, J.: Morality, ethics, and law: introductory concepts. In: Seminars in Speech and Language, vol. 24, pp. 263–274. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Frankena, W.K.: Ethics, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kant, I.: Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (1785)

    Google Scholar 

  22. López, F.L., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: A normative framework for agent-based systems. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 12, 227–250 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lubell, M., Scholz, J.T.: Cooperation, reciprocity, and the collective-action heuristic. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45(1), 160–178 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lujak, M., Giordani, S., Omicini, A., Ossowski, S.: Decentralizing coordination in open vehicle fleets for scalable and dynamic task allocation. Complexity 2020, 1–21 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mabaso, B.A.: Computationally rational agents can be moral agents. Ethics Inf. Technol. 23(2), 137–145 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Noy, N., Gao, Y., Jain, A., Narayanan, A., Patterson, A., Taylor, J.: Industry-scale knowledge graphs: lessons and challenges. Commun. ACM 62(8), 36–43 (2019). https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/8/238342-industry-scale-knowledge-graphs/fulltext

  27. Oceja, L.V., Heerdink, M.W., Stocks, E.L., Ambrona, T., López-Pérez, B., Salgado, S.: Empathy, awareness of others, and action: how feeling empathy for one-among-others motivates helping the others. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 36(2), 111–124 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Osman, N., d’Inverno, M.: A computational framework of human values for ethical AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02748 (2023)

  29. Quinn, M.J.: Ethics for the Information Age. Pearson Education, Boston (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Freitas dos Santos, T., Osman, N., Schorlemmer, M.: Ensemble and incremental learning for norm violation detection. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 427–435 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schwartz, S.: An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2(1), 11 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sierra, C., Osman, N., Noriega, P., Sabater-Mir, J., Perelló, A.: Value alignment: a formal approach. CoRR abs/2110.09240 (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.09240

  33. Smuha, N.A.: The EU approach to ethics guidelines for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Comput. Law Rev. Int. 20(4), 97–106 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sotala, K., Yampolskiy, R.: Responses to the journey to the singularity. In: Callaghan, V., Miller, J., Yampolskiy, R., Armstrong, S. (eds.) The Technological Singularity: Managing the Journey. FRONTCOLL, pp. 25–83. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54033-6_3

    Google Scholar 

  35. Townsend, B., et al.: From pluralistic normative principles to autonomous-agent rules. Minds Mach. 32(4), 683–715 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Von Wright, G.H.: The varieties of goodness (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Zoshak, J., Dew, K.: Beyond Kant and Bentham: how ethical theories are being used in artificial moral agents. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–15 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by grant VAE: TED2021-131295B-C33 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by the “European Union NextGeneration EU/PRTR”, by grant COSASS: PID2021-123673OB-C32 funded by MCIN/AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”, and by the AGROBOTS Project of Universidad Rey Juan Carlos funded by the Community of Madrid (Spain), and the IMPULSO Program of the University Rey Juan Carlos.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CETINIA, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain

    Marin Lujak, Alberto Fernández, Holger Billhardt, Sascha Ossowski, Joaquín Arias & Aitor López Sánchez

  2. Centrale Lille, Univ. Lille, Lille, France

    Aitor López Sánchez

Authors
  1. Marin Lujak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alberto Fernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Holger Billhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sascha Ossowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joaquín Arias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aitor López Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marin Lujak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, Bellaterra, Spain

    Nardine Osman

  2. Studio Stelluti, Brussel, Belgium

    Luc Steels

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lujak, M., Fernández, A., Billhardt, H., Ossowski, S., Arias, J., López Sánchez, A. (2024). On Value-Aligned Cooperative Multi-agent Task Allocation. In: Osman, N., Steels, L. (eds) Value Engineering in Artificial Intelligence. VALE 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 14520. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58202-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-58204-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-58202-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics