Abstract
Agents may choose to ignore contract violations if the costs of enforcing the contract exceed the compensation they would receive. In this paper we describe an argumentation based framework for agents to both decide whether to enforce a contract, and to undertake contract enforcement actions. The framework centres around agents presenting beliefs to justify their position, and backing up these beliefs with facts as necessary. Presenting facts costs an agent utility, and our framework operates by using a reasoning mechanism which is based on the agent comparing the utility it would gain for proving a set of literals with the costs incurred during this process.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
R. K. Dash, N. R. Jennings, and D. C. Parkes. Computational-mechanism design: A call to arms. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(6):40–47, 2003.
A. Daskalopulu, T. Dimitrakos, and T. Maibaum. Evidence-based electronic contract performance monitoring. Group Decision and Negotiation, ll(6):469–485, 2002.
P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321–357, 1995.
T. F. Gordon. The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, pages 10–19. ACM Press, 1993.
A. Josang. Subjective evidential reasoning. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems, pages 1671–1678, July 2002.
M. J. Kollingbaum and T. J. Norman. Supervised interaction — creating a web of trust for contracting agents in electronic environments. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pages 272–279, 2002.
D. Moore. Dialogue game theory for intelligent tutoring systems. PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University, 1993.
N. Oren, T. J. Norman, and A. Preece. Arguing with confidential information. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006. (To appear).
N. Oren, T. J. Norman, and A. Preece. Loose lips sink ships: a heuristic for argumentation. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2006), pages 121–134, Hakodate, Japan, May 2006.
N. Oren, A. Preece, and T. J. Norman. Service level agreements for semantic web agents. In Proceedings of the A A AI Fall Symposium on Agents and the Semantic Web, pages 47–54, 2005.
N. Oren, A. Preece, and T. J. Norman. A simple argumentation based contract enforcement mechanism. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, 2006. (to appear).
J. Patel, W. Teacy, N. Jennings, and M. Luck. A probabilistic trust model for handling inaccurate reputation sources. In Proceedings of Third International Conference on Trust Management, pages 193–209, 2005.
J. Patel, W. T. L. Teacy, N. R. Jennings, M. Luck, S. Chalmers, N. Oren, T. J. Norman, A. Preece, P. M. D. Gray, Shercliff, P. J. G., Stockreisser, J. Shao, W. A. Gray, N. J. Fiddian, and S. Thompson. Agent-based virtual organisations for the grid. International Journal of Multi-Agent and Grid Systems, l(4):237–249, 2005.
H. Prakken. Modelling defeasibility in law: Logic or procedure? Fundamenta Informaticae, 48(2–3):253–271, 2001.
H. Prakken, C. A. Reed, and D. N. Walton. Argumentation schemes and burden of proof. In Workshop Notes of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 2004.
H. Prakken and G. Sartor. A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4:331–368, 1996.
H. Prakken and G. Vreeswijk. Logics for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of philosophical logic, 2nd Edition, volume 4, pages 218–319. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.
D. N. Walton. Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2:233–254, 1988.
L. Xu and M. A. Jeusfeld. Pro-active monitoring of electronic contracts, volume 2681 of Lecture notes in Computer Science, pages 584–600. Springer-Ver lag GmbH, 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this paper
Cite this paper
Oren, N., Preece, A., Norman, T.J. (2007). Argument Based Contract Enforcement. In: Bramer, M., Coenen, F., Tuson, A. (eds) Research and Development in Intelligent Systems XXIII. SGAI 2006. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-663-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-663-6_11
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-662-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-663-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)