Incorporating issues of fairness into development of a multi-agent negotiation support system

ABSTRACT

One of the major concerns raised by people using Negotiation Support Systems is about the fairness of the process. Individuals undertake negotiation to derive better outcomes than could be obtained from conflict and litigation. Thus they often engage in interest based negotiation. But interest based negotiation focuses upon the interests of disputants rather than upon objective measures of fairness or justice.

For example in family law, differences in power between men and women may lead to negotiated results that favor men. Bargaining imbalances can thus produce unfair results unless mediators or Negotiation Support Systems overcome them. It is thus vital to incorporate measures to address fairness in the development of Negotiation Support Systems.

The paper describes the development of a multi-agent based Negotiation Support System designed to assist disputants to achieve legally fairer negotiated outcomes. The system uses a Bayesian Belief Network and Artificial Intelligence techniques to incorporate Best Alternatives to Negotiated Agreements into an integrative bargaining process. Through this system, we aim to demonstrate how principles of legal fairness can be applied in Australian Family Law.

REFERENCES

• 1: Zeleznikow, J., Meersman, R., Hunter, D. and van Helvoort, E. 1995. Computer tools for aiding legal negotiation. ACIS95 --- Sixth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia: 231--251.
• 2: Kersten, G. E. and Noronha, S. J. 1997. Supporting International Negotiations with a WWW-based System, Interim Report, IIASA, Austria.
• 3: Yuan, Y., Rose, B. J., Archer, N. and Suarga, H. (1998) A Web-Based Negotiation Support System, EM - Electronic Markets, 8.
• 4: Eidelman, J. A. 1993. Software for Negotiations, Law Practice Management, 19(7): 50--55.
• 5: Lodder, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2009. Enhanced Dispute Resolution through the use of Information Technology. In press, Cambridge University Press.
• 6: Brams, S. J. and Taylor, A. D., (1996). Fair Division, from cake cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• 7: Thiessen, E. M. and McMahon, J. P. 2000. Beyond Win-Win in Cyberspace. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 15: 643.
• 8: Emilia Bellucci , John Zeleznikow, Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: a case study of the Family_Winner system, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.13 n.2, p.233-271, June 2005 [doi>10.1007/s10506-006-9013-1]
• 9: Alexander, R. 1997. Family mediation: Friend or Foe for Women. 10: 1 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 8(4): 255.
• 10: McEwen, C., Rogers, N. and Maiman, R. 1995. Bring in the Lawyers: Challenging the Dominant Approaches to Ensuring Fairness in Divorce Mediation, Minnesota Law Review 79: 1317--1412.
• 11: Phegan, R. 1995. The Family Mediation System: An Art of Distributions McGill Law. Journal 40: 365.
• 12: Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Boston.
• 13: Toulmin, S. 1958, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
• 14: Lodder, A. and Zeleznikow, J. 2005. Developing an Online Dispute Resolution Environment: Dialogue Tools and Negotiation Systems in a Three Step Model. The Harvard Negotiation Law Review. 10: 287--338.
• 15: Walton, R. and Mckersie, R. 1965. A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations, McGraw - Hill, New York.
• 16: Kersten, G. 2001. Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization. Group Decision and Negotiation. 10(6), 493--514.
• 17: Lax, D. A. and Sebenius, J. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator. New York, The Free Press.
• 18: Mnookin, R. H. and Kornhauser, L. 1979, Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce, Yale Law Journal 88, 950--997.
• 19: Bibas, S. 2004. Plea bargaining outside the shadow of the trial, Harvard Law Review 117, 2464--2547.
• 20: John Zeleznikow , Emilia Bellucci, Family_Mediator --Adding Notions of Fairness to Those of Interests, Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference, p.121-130, June 02, 2006
• 21: Sarit Kraus, Strategic negotiation in multiagent environments, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001
• 22: Jennings, N. R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A. R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C. and Wooldridge, M. 2000. Automated haggling: Building artificial negotiators. In Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, page 1.
• 23: Sarit Kraus , Penina Hoz-Weiss , Jonathan Wilkenfeld , David R. Andersen , Amy Pate, Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations, Artificial Intelligence, v.172 n.1, p.1-18, January, 2008 [doi>10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.007]
• 24: Stuart J. Russell , Peter Norvig, Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995
• 25: Brooke Abrahams , John Zeleznikow, Asset negotiation and trade-off support within a multi-agent environment, Proceedings of the 1st International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation, p.4-10, December 08-09, 2008, Delft, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1609170.1609171]
• 26: Abrahams, B. and Zeleznikow, J. 2008. A Multi-Agent Architecture for Online Dispute Resolution Services, Expanding the Horizons of ODR: Proceedings of the 5^th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, M. Poblet (ed.) CEUR Workshop Proceedings Series (CEUR-WS.org), Vol. 430, Florence, Italy, December 13 2008, 51--61.
• 27: Muecke, N. Stranieri, A. and Miller, C. 2008 Re-Consider: The Integration of Online Dispue Resolution and Decision Support Systems, Expanding the Horizons of ODR: Proceedings of the 5^th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, M. Poblet (ed.) CEUR Workshop Proceedings Series (CEUR-WS.org), Vol. 430, Florence, Italy, December 13 2008, 62--72.
• 28: Stranieri, A., Zeleznikow, J., Gawler, M. and Lewis, B. 1999. A hybrid---neural approach to the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family.
• 29: Emilia Bellucci, Development of a mediation tool in Family Law: AssetDivider, Proceeding of the 2008 conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2008: The Twenty-First Annual Conference, p.88-97, July 08, 2008

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence

Additional Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.3 Deduction and Theorem Proving

  J. Computer Applications
  J.m MISCELLANEOUS

General Terms:
Algorithms, Experimentation, Theory

Keywords:
BATNAs, Bayesian belief networks, integrative negotiation, multi-agent systems, negotiation supports systems