AI techniques for modelling legal negotiation

ABSTRACT

Negotiation is a process of cooperative decision-making between parties concerning the resolution of a common dispute. The goal of negotiation is to develop a settlement that is acceptable to both parties. One way to achieve this is to ensure disputants take responsibility for their outcomes and control the disputation process. Most current systems have chosen to model the negotiation process by representing progress made within a negotiation. In this paper we focus on modelling the trade-offs and compromises to made by parties to a legal dispute. A system we have built to model disputes in Australian Family Law uses fuzzy networks, numerical allocation procedures and decomposition hierarchies.

REFERENCES

• 1: Baron, R. A., 1992. Psychology. MA: Allyn and Bacon.
• 2: Bellucci, E. and Zeleznikow, J., 1996. Family-Negotiator: an inteliigent tool for supporting human negotiation, Research and Development in Expert Systems XIII. Expert Systems 96, Cambridge. SGES:289 - 300.
• 3: Bellucci, E and Zeleznikow, 3 1997. Family-Negotiator: an intelligent decision support system for negotiation in Australian Family Law. Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for Decision Support Systems, Lausanne, International Society for Decision Support Systems:359-373.
• 4: Emilia Bellucci , John Zeleznikow, A Comparative Study of Negotiation Decision Support Systems, Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-Volume 1, p.254, January 06-09, 1998 [doi>10.1109/HICSS.1998.653106]
• 5: Bonham, J. M., 1993. Cognitive Mapping as a technique for supporting international negotiation, Theory and Decision, vol. 34, pp. 255 - 273.
• 6: Brams, S. J., Taylor A. D., 1996. Fair Division, From cake cutting to dispute resolution. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
• 7: Eidelman, J. A. 1993. Software for Negotiations, Low Practice Management, 19 (7): 50-55.
• 8: Fisher, R. and Ury, W. 1981. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Haughton Mifflin.
• 9: Kersten, GE. and Noronha, S. 1998. Negotiation via the World Wide Web - A Cross-Cultural Study of Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation (to appear).
• 10: George J. Klir , Bo Yuan, Fuzzy sets, fuzzy logic, and fuzzy systems: selected papers by Lotfi A. Zadeh, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1996
• 11: Kolodner, J. L. and Simpson, R. L. 1989. The MEDIATOR: Analysis of an Early Case Based Problem Solver, Cognitive Science, 13507-549.
• 12: Kosko, B., 1993. Fuzzy thinking: The new science offuzzy logic. New York: Hyperion.
• 13: Bart Kosko, Neural networks and fuzzy systems: a dynamical systems approach to machine intelligence, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1992
• 14: Stan Matwin , Stan Szpakowicz , Zbig Koperczak , Gregory E. Kersten , Wojtek Michalowski, Negoplan: An Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support, IEEE Expert: Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, v.4 n.4, p.50-62, December 1989 [doi>10.1109/64.43285]
• 15: Nolan, J. 1997. A Conceptual Model for an Intelligent Fuzzy Decision Support System. Heuristics 1 O(2): 3 l-43
• 16: Scott P. Robertson , Wayne W. Zachary , John B. Black, Cognition, computing, and cooperation, Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 1990
• 17: Jeffrey S. Rosenschein , Gilad Zlotkin, Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994
• 18: Sycara, K. 1990. Negotiation planning: An AI approach European Journal of Operations Research 46: 216-234.
• 19: Katia P. Sycara, Machine learning for intelligent support of conflict resolution, Decision Support Systems, v.10 n.2, p.121-136, Sept. 1993 [doi>10.1016/0167-9236(93)90034-Z]
• 20: Sycara, K. 1998. Multiagent Systems. AI Magazine 19(2): 79-92.
• 21: Michael P. Wellman, Formulation of tradeoffs in planning under uncertainty, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1990
• 22: Wertheim, E., Love, A., Littlefield, L., Peck, C., 1992. I Win: You Win How to have fewer conflicts, better solutions, and more satisfying relationships, Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin Books, 130- 135.
• 23: White, J. 1984. The Pros and Cons of 'Getting to Yes', Journal of Legal Education, 34, 1 l5- 117.
• 24: Jonathan Wilkenfeld , Sarit Kraus , Kim M. Holley , Michael A. Harris, GENIE: a decision support system for crisis negotiations, Decision Support Systems, v.14 n.4, p.369-391, Aug. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0167-9236(94)00027-P]
• 25: Zeleznikow, J., Meersman, R., Hunter, D. and van Helvoort, E. 1995. Computer tools for aiding legal negotiation. ACIS9.5 - Sixth Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia: 231-251.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
      I.2.4 Knowledge Representation Formalisms and Methods
          Subjects: Modal logic

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.2 DATABASE MANAGEMENT

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Theory

Keywords:
Australian family law, bidirectional fuzzy cognitive maps, negotiation support system