AI & SOCIETY

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 287–320 | Cite as

Distributed artificial intelligence from a socio-cognitive standpoint: Looking at reasons for interaction

Article

Abstract

Distributed Artificial Intelligence (DAI) deals with computational systems where several intelligent components interact in a common environment. This paper is aimed at pointing out and fostering the exchange between DAI and cognitive and social science in order to deal with the issues of interaction, and in particular with the reasons and possible strategies for social behaviour in multi-agent interaction is also described which is motivated by requirements of cognitive plausibility and grounded the notions of power, dependence and help. Connections with human-computer interaction are also suggested.

Keywords

Cognitive modelling Distributed Artificial Intelligence Human-computer interaction Multi-agent systems Social behaviour 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, J.F. and Perrault, C.R. (1980). Analyzing Intention in Utterances,Artificial Intelligence, 15, 143–178.Google Scholar
  2. Appelt, D. (1985).Planning English Sentences. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, G.R., (1983), Supporting Organizational Problem Solving with a Work Station,ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 1, 45–67.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, R.D., Ickes, W. and Kidd, R.F. (1979). Effects of the Perceived Intentionality and Stability of Another's Dependency on Helping Behaviour,Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 367–372.Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, L., (1972) Social Norms, Feelings, and Other Factors Affecting Helping and Altruism. In Berkowitz (ed)Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 6. Academic Press. New York.Google Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L. (1963). Responsibility and Dependency,Journal of Abnormal and Social Pychology, 66, 429–436.Google Scholar
  7. Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L. (1964). Affecting the Salience of the Social Responsibility Norm: Effect of Past Help on the Response to Dependency Relationships,Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 275–281.Google Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, L. and Friedman, P. (1967). Some Social Class Differences in Helping Behaviour,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 217–225.Google Scholar
  9. Bobrow, D.G. (1991). Dimensions of Interaction: A Shift of Perspective in Artificial Intelligence,AI Magazine, 12, 64–80.Google Scholar
  10. Bond, A.H. and Gasser, L. (eds) (1988).Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Bratman, M.E. (1987).Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Brooks, R.A., (1986). A Robust Layered Control System for a Mobile Robot.IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 2, 14–23.Google Scholar
  13. Castelfranchi, C., (1990), Social Power: A Point Missed in Multi-Agent, DAI and HCI. In Demazeau and Müller (eds)Decentralized Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World. Elsevier. Amsterdam, NL.Google Scholar
  14. Castelfranchi, C., (1992). No More Cooperation, Please! In Search of the Social Structure of Verbal Interaction. In Ortony, Slack, and Stock (eds.)Communication from an Artificial Intelligence Perspective, Springer-Verlag. Berlin.Google Scholar
  15. Castelfranchi, C., Miceli, M. and Cesta A. (1992). Dependence Relations among Autonomous Agents. In Werner and Demazeau (eds.)Decentralized Artificial Intelligence 3. Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Modeling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World. Elsevier. Amsterdam, NL.Google Scholar
  16. Cesta, A. and Miceli, M. (1993). In Search of Help: Strategic Social Knowledge and Plans.In Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburg, PA.Google Scholar
  17. Chaib-Draa, B., Moulin, B., Mandiau, R. and Millot, P. (1992). Trends in Distributed Artifical Intelligence,Artificial Intelligence, Review, 6, 35–66.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, MS., Ouellette, R., Powell M.C. and Millberg, S. (1987). Recipient' Mood, Relationship Type, and Helping,Journal of Personality anbd Social Psychology, 53, 94–103.Google Scholar
  19. Clark, R.D. III and Word, L.E. (1972). Why Don't bystanders Help? Because of Ambiguity?,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 392–400.Google Scholar
  20. Clark, R.D. III and Word, L.E. (1974). Where Is the Apathetic Bystander? Situational Characteristics of the Emergency,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 279–288.Google Scholar
  21. Clearwater, S.H., Huberman, B.A. and Hogg, T. (1991). Cooperative Solution of Constraint Satisfaction Problems,Science, 254, 1181–1183.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, P.R. and Lawrence, H.J. (1990). Intention Is Choice with Commitment,Artificial Intelligence, 42, 213–261.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, P.R. and Levesque, H.J. (1991). Teamwork,Nous, 25, 487–512.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, P.R. and Perrault, C.R. (1979. Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts,Cognitive Science, 3, 177–212.Google Scholar
  25. Conry, S.R., Kuwabara, K., Lesser, V.R. and Meyer, R.A. (1991). Multistage Negotiation for Distributed Constraints Satisfaction,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybenetics, 21, 1462–1477.Google Scholar
  26. Conry, S.E., Meyer, R.A. and Lesser, V.R. (1988). Multi-stage Negotiation in Distributed Planning. In Bond and Gasser (eds)Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence Morgan Kauffman. Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  27. Conte, R. and Castelfranchi, C. (1995).Cognitive and Social Action. University College of London Press. London.Google Scholar
  28. Corkhill, D.D. and Lesser, V.R. (1983). The Use of Meta-Level Control for Coordination in a Distributed Problem Solving Network. InProceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kauffman. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Covrigaru, A.A. and Lindsay, R.K. (1991) Deterministic Autonomous Agents,AI Magazine, 12, 110–117.Google Scholar
  30. Cramer, R.E., Weis, R.F., Steigleder, M.K. and Balling, S.S. (1985). Attraction in Context:Acquisition and Blocking of Person-Directed Action, Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1221–1230.Google Scholar
  31. Daniels, J.M., Teger, A.I. and Lewis, L.D. (1973). Do Groups Always Inhibit Individuals' Responses to Potential Emergencies?,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 395–399.Google Scholar
  32. Davis, R. and Smith, R.G. (1983). Negotiation as a Metaphor for Distributed Problem Solving.Artificial Intelligence, 20, 63–109.Google Scholar
  33. Deutsch, M., (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What Determines Which Value Will Be Used as the Basis of Distributive Justice?,Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.Google Scholar
  34. Doyle, J., (1979). A Truth Maintenance System,Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–272.Google Scholar
  35. Durfee, E.H., Lesser, V.R. and Corkill, D.D. (1987). Coherent Cooperation among Communicating Problem Solvers,IEEE Transaction on Computers, 36, 1275–1291.Google Scholar
  36. Durfee, E.H., Lesser, V.R. and Corkill, D.D. (1989). Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving. In Barr and Feigenbaum (eds)The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 4. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  37. Durfee, E.H. and Montgomery, T.A. (1991). Coordination as Distributed Search in a Hierarchical Behaviour Space.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21, 1363–1378.Google Scholar
  38. Fellner, C.H. and Marshall, J.R. (1981) Kidney Donors Revisited in Rushton and Sorrentino (eds)Altruism and Helping Behaviour. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  39. Galbraith, J.R., (1973).Designing Complex Organizations. Addison Wesley. Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  40. Galliers, J.R., (1991). Modelling Autonomous Belief Revision in Dialogue. In Demazeau and Müller (eds)Decentralized Artificial Intelligence.Proceeding of the 1st European Conference on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World. Elsevier. Amsterdam, NL.Google Scholar
  41. Gasser, L. (1991). Social Conception of Knowledge and Actions: DAI Foundations and Open Systems semantics,Artificial Intelligence, 47, 107–138.Google Scholar
  42. Gasser, L. and Hill, R.W. (1990). Engineering Coordinated Problem Solvers,Annual Review of Computer Science, 4, 203–253.Google Scholar
  43. Georgeff, M., (1983). Communication and Interaction in Multi-Agent Planning. InProceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Amrican Association for Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  44. Gmytriasiewicz, P.J. and Durfee, E.H. (1993). Reasoning about Others: Philosophy Theory, and Implementation. InProceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  45. Goodwin, R. and Simmonds R. (1992). Rational Handling of Multiple Goals for Mobile Robots. In hendler (ed)Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Goranson, R.E. and Berkowitz, L. (1966). Reciprocity and Responsibility Reactions to Prior Help,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 227–232.Google Scholar
  47. Gouldner, A.W., (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,American Sociological Reviews, 25, 161–178.Google Scholar
  48. Greenberg, MS. and Westcott, D.R. (1983). Indebtness as a Mediator of Reactions to Aid. In Fisher, Nadler and DePaulo (eds)New Directions in Helping, Vol. 1: Recipient Reactions to Aid. Academic Press. New York.Google Scholar
  49. Gross, A.E. and Latané, J.G. (1974). Receiving Help, Reciprocation, and Interpersonal Attraction,Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 210–223.Google Scholar
  50. Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1990). Plans for Discourse. In Cohen, Morgan and Pollack (eds) Intentions in Computational Linguistics, 12, 175–204.Google Scholar
  51. Grosz, B.J. and Sidner, C.L. (1990). Plans for Discourse. In Cohen, Morgan and Pollack (eds)Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  52. Haddadi, A. and Sundermeyer, K. (1993). Knowledge about Others in Hetrogeneous Dynamics Domains. In Huhns, Papazoglu and Schlageter (eds)Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Informations Systems. IEEE Computer Society Press. Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  53. Halpern, J.Y. and Moses, Y. (1985). A guide to the Modal Logics of Knowledge and Belief: Preliminary Draft. InProceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kauffman. Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  54. Hewit, C., (1991) Open Information Systems Semantics for Distributed Artificial Intelligence,Artificial Intelligence, 47, 79–106.Google Scholar
  55. Huhns, M.N., (ed) (1987).Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Pitman/Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  56. Huhns, M.N. and Bridgeland, D.M. (1991). Multi-Agent Truth Maintenance,IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, 21, 1437–1445.Google Scholar
  57. Ickes, W.J. and Kidd, R.F. (1976). An Attributional Analysis of Helping Behaviour. In Harvey, Ickes and Kidd (1976). An Attributional analysis of Helping Behaviour. In Harvey, Ickes and Kidd (eds)New Directions in Attribution Research. Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  58. Jennings, N.R., (1993). Commitments and Conventions: The Foundation of Coordination in Multi-Agent Systems,The Knowledge Engineering Review, 8, 223–250.Google Scholar
  59. Jennings, N.R. and Mamdani, E.H. (1992). Using Joint Responsibility to Coordinate Collaborative Problem Solving in Dynamic Environments. InProceedings of the 10th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  60. Klein, M., (1991) Supporting Conflict Resolution in Cooperative Design Systems,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21, 1379–1390.Google Scholar
  61. Klein, M., (ed) (1993).Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computation Models of Conflict Management in Cooperative Problems Solving. Chambery, FR.Google Scholar
  62. Krebs, D.L., (1970). Altruism-An Examination of the Concept and a Review of the Literature,Psychological Bulletin, 73, 258–302.Google Scholar
  63. Laarsi, B., Lassri, H. and Lesser, V.R. (1990). Negotiation and Its Role in Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving. InProceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence. MCC Technical Report No ACT-AI-355-90. Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation. Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  64. Laffey, T.J., Cox, P.A., Schmidt, J.L., Kao, S.M. and Read, J.Y. (1988). Real-Time Knowledge-Based Systems,AI Magazine, 9, 27–45.Google Scholar
  65. Latané, B. and Darley, J.M. (1970)The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? Appleton. New York.Google Scholar
  66. Lerner, M.J. and Meindl, J.R. (1981). Justice and Altruism In Rushton and Sorrentino (eds)Altruism and Helping Behaviour, Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  67. Lesser, V.R. and Corkill, D.D. (1981). Functionality Accurate, Cooperative Distributed Systems,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 11, 81–96.Google Scholar
  68. Lesser, V.R. and Corkill, D.D. (1983), The Distributed Vehicle Monitoring Testbed: A Tool for Investigating Distributed Problem Solving Networks,AI Magazine, 4, 15–33.Google Scholar
  69. Luce, R.D. and Raiffa, H. (1957).Games and Decisions. Wiley. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Lux, A., de Greef, P., Bomarius F., and Steiner, D. (1993). A Generic Framework for Human Computer Cooperation. In Huhns, Papazoglu and Schlageter (eds)Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Informations Systems. IEEE Computer Society Press. Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  71. Maes, P. and Kozierok, R. (1993). Learning Interface Agents. inProceedings of the 11th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  72. Malone, T.W., (1987). Modeling Coordination in Organizations and Markets.Management Science, 33, 1317–1332.Google Scholar
  73. Malone, T.W. and Crowston, K. (1994).The Interdisciplinary Study of Coordinations, ACM Computing Surveys, 26, 87–119.Google Scholar
  74. March, J.G. and Simon H.A. (1958).Organizations. Wiley. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Martial, F., von (1992).Coordinating Plans of Autonomous Agents. Springer-Verlag. Berlin.Google Scholar
  76. Mazer, MS. (1987)). Exploring the Use of Distributed Problem-Solving in Office Support Systems. InProceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Office Automation, Gaitersburg, MD.Google Scholar
  77. Mead, G.H., (1934).Mind, Self and Society. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
  78. Miceli, M. (1992). How to Make Someone fell Guilty: Strategies of Guilt Inducement and Their Goals,Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 22, 81–104.Google Scholar
  79. Micelli, M. and Cesta, A. (1993). Strategic Social Planning: Looking for Willingness in Multi-Agent Domains. InProceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  80. Miceli, M., and Cesta, A., and Conte, R. (1993). Others as Resources: Cognitive Ingredients for Agent Architecture. In Ryan and Sutcliffe (eds)AI and Cognitive Science '92. Springer-Verlag, London.Google Scholar
  81. Nirenburg, S. and Lesser, V.R. (1988). Providing Intelligent Assistance in Distributed Work Environments. In Bond and Gasser (eds)Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  82. O'Hare, G.M.P. and Kirn, S. (eds.) (1993).Towards the Intelligent Organization: The Coordinations Perspective. Pre-Proceedings of DTI CSCW Anglo/German SIG Meeting. Report No. AI-39-9. University of Manchester, Institute of Science and Technology. Manchester.Google Scholar
  83. Pan, J.Y.C. and Tenenbaum, J.M. (1991). An Intelligent Agent Framework for Enterprise Integration,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 21, 1391–1408.Google Scholar
  84. Petty, R.E. and Caciopps, J.T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion:Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Springer-Verlag. New York.Google Scholar
  85. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Goldman, R. (1981). Personal Involvement as a Determinant of Argument-Based Persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.Google Scholar
  86. Pollack, M.E. (1990). Plans as Complex Mental Attitudes. In Cohen, Morgan and Pollack (eds)Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  87. Prinz, W., (1993). Tosca, Providing Organisational Information to CSCW Applications. In de Michelis, Simone and Schmidt (eds)Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Kluwer. Boston.Google Scholar
  88. Raiffa, H., (1982).The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  89. Rao, AS. and Geogeff, M.P. (1991). Modelling Rational Agents within a BDI Architecture. In Allens, Fikes and Sandewall (eds)Proceedings of the 2nd International conference on Principles of Knowledge Represenation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  90. Rao, AS. and Georgeff, M.P. (1992). An Abstract Architecture for Rational Agents. In Nebel, Rich and Swartout (eds)Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  91. Rao, AS. and Georgeff, M.P. and Sonenberg, E.A., (1992). Social Plans: A Preliminary Report. In Werner and Demazeau (eds)Decentralized Artificial Intelligence 3. Proceedings of the the 3rd European Conference on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World. Elsevier. Amsterdam, N.L.Google Scholar
  92. Rich, E., (1979). User Modeling via Stereotypes,Cognitive Science, 3, 329–354.Google Scholar
  93. Riecken, D., (ed) (1994) Intelligent Agents,Communications of the ACM, 37.Google Scholar
  94. Rosenschein, JS. and Genesereth, M. R. (1985). Deals among Rational Agents. InProceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann. Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  95. Rosenschein, JS. and Zlotkin, G. (1994).Rules of Encounters. Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  96. Rosenschein, S.J. and Kaelbing, L.P. (1986). The Synthesis of Digital Machnies with Provable Epistemic Properties. In Halpern (ed)Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo CA.Google Scholar
  97. Roth, A.E., (1985).Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining. Cambridge University Press. CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  98. Schmidt, C.F., Sridharan, N.F. and Goodson, J.L. (1978). The Plan Recognition Problem: An Intersection of Psychology and Artificial Intelligence,Artificial Intelligence, 11, 45–83.Google Scholar
  99. Schmidt, G. and Weiner, B. (1988). An Attribution-Affect-Action Theory of Behaviour: Replications of Judgements of Help-Giving,Personality and Social Pscychology Bulletin, 14, 610–621.Google Scholar
  100. Schoenrade, P.A., Batson, C.D., Brandt, J.R. and Loud, R.E. (1986). Attachment, Accounability, and Motivation to Benefit Another Not In Distress,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 557–563.Google Scholar
  101. Schwartz, S.H., (1975). The Justice of the Need and the Activation of Humanitarian Norms,Journal of Social Issues, 31, 111–136Google Scholar
  102. Schwartz, S.H., (1977). Normative Influences on Altuism. In Berkowitz (ed)Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10. Academic Press. New York.Google Scholar
  103. Searle, J.R. (1969).Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  104. Searle, J.R. (1990). Collective Intentions and Actions. In Cohen, Morgan, Pollack (eds)Intentions in communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  105. Shapiro, S.C. and Rapaport, W.J., (1987). SNePS Considered as a Fully Intentional Propositional Semantic Network. In Cercone and McCalla (eds)The Knowledge Frontier: Essays in the Representation of Knowledge. Springer-Verlag. New York.Google Scholar
  106. Shotland, R.L. and Heinhold, W.D. (1985). Bystander Response to Aterial Bleeding: Helping Skills, the Decision Making Process, and Differentiating the Helping Response,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 347–356.Google Scholar
  107. Singh, M.P., (1991). Towards a Formal Theory of Communication for Multiagent Systems. InProceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  108. Sycara, K., (1989). Argumentation: Planning Other Agents' Plans. In.Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  109. Tuomela, R. and Miller, KL. (1988). We Intentions,Philosophical Studies, 53, 367–389.Google Scholar
  110. Wellman, M.P., (1993). A Market-Oriented Programming Environment and Its Application to Distributed Multicommodity low Problems, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 1–23.Google Scholar
  111. Werner, E., (1989). Cooperating Agents: A Unified Theory of Communication and Social Structure. In Gasser and Huhns (eds)Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann. Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  112. Wispé, L.G., (1968). Sympathy and Empathy. In Sills (ed)International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan. New York.Google Scholar
  113. Yang, Q., (1992). A Theory of Conflict Resolution in Planning,Artificial Intelligence, 58, 361–392.Google Scholar
  114. Yu, E.S.K., (1993). Modelling Organizations for Information Systems Requirements Engineering. In Proceedings of theIEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering. IEEE Computer Society Press. Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  115. Zlotkin, G. and Rosenschein, JS. (1991), Incomplete Information and Deception in Multi-Agent Negotiation. InProceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann. San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar
  116. Zlotkin, G. and Rosenschein, JS. (1993). A Domain Theory for Task Oriented Negotiation. InProceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IP-CNRNational Research Council of ItalyRomeItaly
  2. 2.Center of Cognitive ScienceUniversita' di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations