skip to main content
10.1145/1609170.1609171acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshucomConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Asset negotiation and trade-off support within a multi-agent environment

Published:08 December 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Argumentation theory is often used in multi agentsystems to facilitate autonomous agent reasoning and multi-agent interaction. The technology can also be used to develop online negotiation and mediation services by providing argument structures that assist parties involved in a dispute to resolve outstanding issues or avoid future disputes. While Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) represents a move from a fixed and formal process to a more flexible one, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) moves ADR from a physical to a virtual place. The research aims to capitalise on the recent trend towards ODR by creating a JADE based multi-agent ODR environment. The utility functions and argument structures of two existing ODR applications are being re-deployed as Web based intelligent agents capable of intuitively coordinating during a negotiation. One agent uses expert knowledge of the Australian Family Law domain to recommend a percentage property split, while another uses heuristics and game theory and combines this split with a significance rating of items provided by each party, to allocate issues and advise upon possible trade-offs. The ultimate aim is to provide disputants with an integrated ODR environment offering a range of services to assist them in achieving fairer outcomes.

References

  1. Bellucci, E. 2004, 'Developing Compensation Strategies for the Construction of Negotiation Decision Support Systems', PHD thesis, School of Computer Science and Computer Engineering, Latrobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Caillou, P., Baptisca, T.&Curchod, C. 2008, 'Multi-agent Based simulation for Decision-Making: an application to Rungis food market', paper presented to Group Decision and Negotiation, Coimbra Portugal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Condliffe, P. 2008, 'The Rise of ADR', in Conflict Management - A Practical Guide, LexisNexis Butterworks, Brisbane Australia.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Dai, W.&Abrahams, B. 2005, 'A multiagent architecture for Semantic Web resources', paper presented to IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, Compiegne, France. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Negnevitsky, M. 2002, 'Uncertainty Management in Rule-Based Expert Systems', in Artificia Intellegence - A Guide to Intelligent Systems, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, pp. 55--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Pearl, J. 1988. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kafmann, San Francisco Ca. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Rahwan, I. 2005, 'Guest Editorial: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems', Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 115--25 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Rule, C. 2002, 'Advantages of ODR', in Online Dispute Resolution, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Szufel, P.&Wojewnik, P. 2008, 'Universal software platform for construction of web-based negotiation support systems', paper presented to Group Decision and Negotiation 2008, Coimbra Portugal.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Toulmin, S. 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Zeleznikow, J. 2004, 'The Split-up Project: Induction, Context and Knowledge Discovery in Law', Law Probability and Risk, vol. 3, pp. 147--68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. John Zeleznikow&Emilia Bellucci, Family_Mediator: Adding Notions of Fairness to Those With Interests, in Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2006: The Nineteenth Annual Conference 121 (Tom M. van Engers ed., 2006). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Zeleznikow, J., Bellucci, E., Uri, J. S.&Mackenzie, G. 2007, 'Bargaining in the shadow of the law - using utility functions to support legal negotiation', paper presented to Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, Stanford, California. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Asset negotiation and trade-off support within a multi-agent environment

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader