A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation

ABSTRACT

We propose a formal and executable framework for expressing protocols and strategies for automated (legal) negotiation. In this framework a party involved in a negotiation is represented through a software agent composed of four modules: (i) a communication module which manages the interaction with the other agents; (ii) a control module; (iii) a reasoning module specified as a defeasible theory; and (iv) a knowledge base which bridges the control and the reasoning modules, while keeping track of past decisions and interactions. The choice of defeasible logic is justified against a set of desirable criteria for negotiation automation languages. Moreover, the suitability of the framework is illustrated through two case studies.

REFERENCES

• 1: Agorics Inc. A survey of auctions. http://www.agorics.com/new.html, 1996.
• 2: Grigoris Antoniou, David Billington, Guido Governatori, and Michael Maher. On the modeling and analysis of regulations. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Information Systems, 1999.
• 3: Grigoris Antoniou , David Billington , Guido Governatori , Michael J. Maher, A Flexible Framework for Defeasible Logics, Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, p.405-410, July 30-August 03, 2000
• 4: Grigoris Antoniou, David Billington, Guido Governatori, Michael Maher, and Andrew Rock. A family of defeasible reasoning logics and its implementation. In Werner Horn, editor, ECAI 2000. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Amsterdam, 2000. IOS Press.
• 5: Grigoris Antoniou, Micheal J. Maher, and David Billington. Defeasible logic versus logic programming without negation as failure. Journal of Logic Programming, 41(1):45-57, 2000.
• 6: Emilia Bellucci , John Zeleznikow, AI techniques for modelling legal negotiation, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.108-116, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway [doi>10.1145/323706.323723]
• 7: Instituto de Investigaci on en Inteligencia Artificial (IIIA). The FishMarket project. http://www.iiia.csic.es/Projects/fishmarket.
• 8: eBay. Home page. http://www.ebay.com.
• 9: A. Garcia, D. Gollapally, P. Tarau, and G. Simari. Deliberative stock market agents using Jinni and defeasible logic programming. In Proc. of the ECAI Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents' World, Berlin, Germany, August 2000. Springer Verlag.
• 10: Thomas F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, 1995.
• 11: Guido Governatori and Michael J. Maher. An argumentation-theoretic characterization of defeasible logic. In Werner Horn, editor, ECAI 2000. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence,Amsterdam, 2000. IOS Press.
• 12: Guido Governatori, Michael J. Maher, Grigoris Antoniou, and David Billington. Argumentation semantics for defeasible logics. In Riichiro Mizoguchi and John Slaney, editors, PRICAI 2000: Topics in Artificial Intelligence, volume 1886 of LNAI, pages 27-37, Berlin, 2000. Springer-Verlag.
• 13: J.J. van Griethuysen, editor. Concepts and Terminology for the Conceptual Schema and the Information Base. Publ. nr. ISO/TC97/SC5/WG3-N695, ANSI, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036, 1982.
• 14: Benjamin N. Grosof, Prioritized conflict handing for logic programs, Proceedings of the 1997 international symposium on Logic programming, p.197-211, November 1997, Port Washington, New York, United States
• 15: A.H.M. ter Hofstede. Information Modelling in Data Intensive Domains. PhD thesis, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1993.
• 16: IIIA, ISOCO and UPC (organizers). AMECIII trading agents' tournament. http://www.iiia.csic.es/ Projects/fishmarket/agents2000, June 2000.
• 17: N.R. Jennings, Parsons S, C. Sierra, and P. Faratin. Automated negotiation. In Proc. of the Conference on Pratical Applications of Intelligent Agents and Multi-agent Systems (PAAM), Manchester, UK, 2000.
• 18: Ronald Loui. Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14:1-38, 1998.
• 19: Michael J. Maher. Propositional defeasible logic has linear complexity. Technical report, Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Loyola University, Chicago, 2000.
• 20: M. J. Maher , G. Governatori, A semantic decomposition of defeasible logics, Proceedings of the sixteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence and the eleventh Innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference innovative applications of artificial intelligence, p.299-305, July 18-22, 1999, Orlando, Florida, United States
• 21: Michael J. Maher, Andrew Rock, Grigoris Antoniou, David Billignton, and Timothy Miller. Efficient defeasible reasoning systems. In Proc. International Conference on Tool in Artificial Intelligence. EEEI Computer Society Press, 2000.
• 22: Katsumi Nitta , Masato Shibasaki , Akira Yamazaki , Yoshiaki Yasumura, A legal negotiation support system, Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, p.132-133, June 14-17, 1999, Oslo, Norway [doi>10.1145/323706.323785]
• 23: Donald Nute. Apparent obligation. In Donald Nute, editor, Defeasible Deontic Logic, pages 287-316. Kluwer, 1997.
• 24: Donald Nute. Norms, priorities and defeasibility. In Paul McNamara and Henry Prakken, editors, Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies in Deontic Logic, pages 83-100. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1998.
• 25: The University of Michigan Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The Michigan Internet AuctionBot. http://auction.eecs.umich.edu.
• 26: S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:261-292, 1998.
• 27: Henry Prakken. Relating protocols for dynamic dispute with logics for defeasible argumentation. Synthese, 127:187-219, 2001.
• 28: Howard Raiffa. The art and science of negotiation.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.
• 29: Daniel M. Reeves, Michael P. Wellman, Benjamin N. Grosof, and Hoi Y. Chan. Automated negotiation from declarative contract descriptions. In Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Workshop on Knowledge-Based Electronic Markets(KBEM), Austin, Texas, July 30-31 2000. AAAI, AAAI Press.
• 30: Tuomas Sandholm, eMediator: a next generation electronic commerce server, Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Autonomous agents, p.341-348, June 03-07, 2000, Barcelona, Spain [doi>10.1145/336595.337522]
• 31: Betsy Strother, TAC a trading agent competition, ACM SIGecom Exchanges, v.1 n.1, p.26-28, Summer, 2000 [doi>10.1145/844302.844308]
• 32: TradeOut. Home page. http://www.tradeout.com.
• 33: Gerhard Weiss, Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
• 34: Michael Wooldridge, Intelligent agents, Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999
• 35: Peter R. Wurman , Michael P. Wellman , William E. Walsh, The Michigan Internet AuctionBot: a configurable auction server for human and software agents, Proceedings of the second international conference on Autonomous agents, p.301-308, May 10-13, 1998, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States [doi>10.1145/280765.280847]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING

Additional Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.4 COMPUTERS AND SOCIETY

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Theory

Keywords:
auctions, automated legal negotiation, defeasible logic, software agents