Using Game Description Language for mediated dispute resolution
Mediation is a process in which two parties agree to resolve their dispute by negotiating over alternative solutions presented by a mediator. In order to construct such solutions, the mediator brings more information and knowledge, and, if possible, resources to the negotiation table. In order to do so, the mediator faces the challenge of determining which information is relevant to the current problem, given a vast database of knowledge. The contribution of this paper is the automated mediation machinery to resolve this issue. We define the concept of a Mediation Problem and show how it can be described in Game Description Language (GDL). Furthermore, we present an algorithm that allows the mediator to efficiently determine which information is relevant to the problem and collect this information from the negotiating agents. We show with several experiments that this algorithm is much more efficient than the naive solution that simply takes all available knowledge into account.
KeywordsDispute resolution Knowledge representation Mediation Game description language Automated negotiation
This work was sponsored by Endeavour Research Fellowship 4577_2015 awarded by the Australian Department of Education.
- Baydin AG, López de Mántaras R, Simoff S, Sierra C (2011) CBR with commonsense reasoning and structure mapping: an application to mediation. In: Ram A, Wiratunga N (eds) Case-based reasoning research and development: 19th international conference on case-based reasoning, ICCBR 2011, London, 12–15 Sept 2011. Proceedings, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23291-6_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Debenham J (2004) Bargaining with information. In: Jennings NR, Sierra C, Sonenberg L, Tambe M (eds) Proceedings third international conference on autonomous agents and multi agent systems AAMAS-2004. ACM Press, New York, pp 664–671Google Scholar
- Debenham JK, Simoff S (2006) Negotiating intelligently. In: Bramer M, Coenen F, Tuson A (eds) Proceedings 26th international conference on innovative techniques and applications of artificial intelligence, Cambridge, pp 159–172Google Scholar
- Genesereth M, Love N, Pell B (2005) General game playing: overview of the AAAI competition. AI Mag 26(2):62–72Google Scholar
- Jonge Dd, Zhang D (2016) Using gdl to represent domain knowledge for automated negotiations. In: Osman N, Sierra C (eds) Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: aamas 2016 workshops, visionary papers, Singapore, 9–10 May 2016. Revised selected papers, Springer, Cham, pp 134–153Google Scholar
- Knuth DE, Moore RW (1975) An analysis of alpha–beta pruning. Artif Intell 6(4):293–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(75)90019-3. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004370275900193 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Love N, Genesereth M, Hinrichs T (2006) General game playing: game description language specification. Tech. Rep. LG-2006-01, Stanford University, Stanford. http://logic.stanford.edu/reports/LG-2006-01.pdf
- von Neumann J (1959) On the theory of games of strategy. In: Tucker A, Luce R (eds) Contrib Theory Games. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 13–42Google Scholar
- Sierra C, Debenham J (2007) Information-based agency. In: Proceedings of twentieth international joint conference on artificial intelligence IJCAI-07, Hyderabad, pp 1513—1518Google Scholar
- Thielscher M (2010) A general game description language for incomplete information games. In: Fox M, Poole D (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2010, Atlanta, 11–15 July 2010, AAAI Press. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI10/paper/view/1727
- Visser W, Hindriks KV, Jonker CM (2011) Interest-based preference reasoning. In: Proceedings of international conference on agents and artificial intelligence ICAART2011, pp 79–88Google Scholar
- Wilkenfeld J, Kraus S, Santmire TE, Frain CK (2004) The role of mediation in conflict management: Conditions for successful resolution. In: et al ZM (ed) Multiple paths to knowledge in international relations, Lexington BooksGoogle Scholar