Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 789–826 | Cite as

Using Case-Based Reasoning and Principled Negotiation to provide decision support for dispute resolution

  • Davide Carneiro
  • Paulo NovaisEmail author
  • Francisco Andrade
  • John Zeleznikow
  • José Neves
Regular Paper

Abstract

The growing use of Information Technology in the commercial arena leads to an urgent need to find alternatives to traditional dispute resolution. New tools from fields such as artificial intelligence (AI) should be considered in the process of developing novel online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms, in order to make the ligation process simpler, faster and conform with the new virtual environments. In this work, we describe UMCourt, a project built around two sub-fields of AI research: Multi-agent Systems and Case-Based Reasoning, aimed at fostering the development of tools for ODR. This is then used to accomplish several objectives, from suggesting solutions to new disputes based on the observation of past similar disputes, to the improvement of the negotiation and mediation processes that may follow. The main objective of this work is to develop autonomous tools that can increase the effectiveness of the dispute resolution processes, namely by increasing the amount of meaningful information that is available for the parties.

Keywords

Online dispute resolution Expert system Case-Based Reasoning Information retrieval 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by National Funds through the FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology) within project PEst-OE/EEI/UI0752/2011. The work of Davide Carneiro is also supported by a doctoral grant by FCT (SFRH/BD/64890/2009).

References

  1. 1.
    Aamodt A, Plaza E (1994) Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun 7(1):39–59Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alterman R (1989) Panel discussion on case representation. In: Proceedings of the second workshop on case-based reasoning, Pensacola BeachGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrade F, Barbieri D, Carneiro D, Novais P (2010) Artificial intelligence applications in ODR: the UMCourt project. In: Proceedings of the 17th annual northwest dispute resolution conference, University of Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashley KD (2004) Case-based models of legal reasoning in a civil law context. In: International congress of comparative cultures and legal systems of the instituto de investigaciones jurídicasGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Behrman BW, Davey SL (2001) Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: an archival analysis. Law Hum Behav 25(5):475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2008) Developing Multi-agent Systems with JADE. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellucci E, Zeleznikow J (2001) Representations of decision-making support in negotiation. J Decis Syst 10(3–4):449–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellucci E, Lodder A, Zeleznikow J (2004) Integrating artificial intelligence, argumentation and game theory to develop an online dispute resolution environment. In: Proceedings of the ICTAI-2004—16th IEEE international conference on tools with AI, pp 749–754Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bellucci E, Zeleznikow J (2006) Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: a case study of the family winner system. J Artif Intell Law 13(2):233–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown H, Marriott A (1999) ADR principles and practice. Sweet& Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cáceres E (2008) EXPERTIUS: a Mexican judicial decision-support system in the field of family law. In: Francesconi EBE, Sartor G, Tiscornia D (eds) Legal knowledge and information systems. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 78–87Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carneiro D, Novais P, Andrade F, Zeleznikow J, Neves J (2009) The legal precedent in online dispute resolution. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Guido Governatori (eds) Proceedings of the Jurix 2009—the 22nd international conference on legal knowledge and information systems, IOS press, pp 47–52. ISBN 978-1-60750-082-7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carneiro D, Novais P, Costa R, Neves J (2010) Enhancing the role of multi-agent systems in the development of intelligent environments. Advances in intelligent and soft computing, vol 71. Springer, pp 123–130. ISBN 978-3-642-12432-7Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Vries BR, Leenes R, Zeleznikow J (2005) Fundamentals of providing negotiation support online: the need for developing BATNAs. In: Proceedings of the second international ODR workshop, Wolf Legal Publishers, Tilburg, pp 59–67Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fernandes AM (2005) Direito de trabalho, Almedina, (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foundation for Intelligent physical Agents: FIPA ACL message structure specification (2002) available at http://www.fipa.org/specs/fipa00061, accessed in August 2012
  17. 17.
    Fisher R, Ury W (1991) Getting to YES: negotiating agreement without giving. In: Penguin books, ISBN 978-0140157352Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Follett MP (1940) Constructive conflict. In: Metcalf HC, Urwick IL (eds) Dynamic administration: the collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. Harper, New York, pp 30–49Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foxall G (2004) What judges maximize: towards an economic psychology of the judicial utility function. Liverp Law Rev 25:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fudenberg DA, Tirole J (1983) Game theory, Chapter 1, Section 2.4. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldberg SB, Sander FE, Rogers N et al (2003) Dispute resolution: negotiation, mediation and other processes. Aspen Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodman JW (2003) The pros and cons of online dispute resolution: an assessment of cyber-mediation websites. Duke Law Technol Rev, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hasan M, Salem S, Zaki M (2010) SimClus: an effective algorithm for clustering with a lower bound on similarity. Knowl Inf Syst. doi: 10.1007/s10115-010-0360-6
  24. 24.
    INCM (2009) Código do Trabalho (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jennings N, Faratin P, Lomuscio A et al (2001) Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decis Negot 10(2):199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Katsch E, Rifkin J (2001) Online dispute resolution–resolving conflicts in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass Wiley Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klaming L, Van Veenen J, Leenes R (2008) I want the opposite of what you want: summary of a study on the reduction of fixed-pie perceptions in online negotiations. In: Expanding the horizons of ODR, Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on online dispute resolution, Firenze, Italy, pp 84–94Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Landes WM, Posner RA (1976) Legal precedent: a theoretical and empirical analysis. J Law Econ 19:249–307Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewicki R, Saunders D, Minton J (1999) Zone of potential agreement. Negotiation, 3rd edn. Irwin-McGraw Hill, Burr RidgeGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lynda T, Mohand B, Mariam D (2010) Evaluation of contextual information retrieval effectiveness: overview of issues and research. Knowl Inf Syst 24(1):1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martinez PR, Monteiro L, Vasconcelos J, et al. (2008) Código do trabalho, Almedina, (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Notini J (2005) Effective alternatives analysis in mediation: “BATNA/WATNA” analysis demystified. Available at http://www.mediate.com/articles/notini1.cfm. Last accessed August 2012
  33. 33.
    Peruginelli G, Chiti G (2002) Artificial Intelligence in alternative dispute resolution. In: Proceedings of the workshop on the law of electronic agents—LEAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Popple J (1996) A pragmatic legal expert system. Ashgate, DartmouthGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Posner RA (1993) What do judges and justices maximize. Supreme Court Econ Rev 3:1–41Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raiffa H (1982) Art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Riesbeck C, Bain W (1987) A methodology for implementing case-based reasoning systems, LockheedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Slade S (1991) Case-based reasoning: a research paradigm. AI Mag 12:42–55Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Steinbach M, Tan PN, Kumar V (eds) (2005) Introduction to data mining. Pearson Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tang M, Zhou Y, Li J, Wang W, Cui P, Hou Y, Luo Z, Li J, Lei F, Yan B (2010) Exploring the wild birds’ migration data for the disease spread study of H5N1: a clustering and association approach. Knowl Inf Syst 1–25. doi: 10.1007/s10115-010-0308-x
  41. 41.
    Thiessen EM (1993) ICANS: an interactive computer-assisted multi-party negotiation support system. In: PhD dissertation, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thiessen EM, McMahon JP (2000) Beyond win-win in cyberspace. Ohio State J Disput Resolut 15:643Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thiessen EM, Fraser K (2003) Mobile ODR with smartSettle. In: Proceedings of the UNECE Forum on ODRGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thomas K, Kilmann R (1974) Conflict and conflict management. Available at http://www.kilmann.com/conflict.html, accessed in August 2012
  45. 45.
    Walton PRE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Waterman DA, Peterson M (1980) Rule-based models of legal expertise. In: Proceedings of the first national conference on AI, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Watson I, Marir F (1994) Case-based reasoning: a review. Knowl Eng Rev 9:327–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl Eng Rev 10:115–152Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wooldridge M, Jennings NR, Kinny D (2000) The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 3(3):285–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wooldrige M (2002) An introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu X, Kumar V, Quinlan JR et al (2007) Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowl Inf Syst 14(2008)1:1–37Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zeleznikow J, Stranieri A (1995) The split-up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, College Park, pp 185–194Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2003) Family-Winner: integrating game theory and heuristics to provide negotiation support. In: Proceedings of sixteenth international conference on legal knowledge based, system, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (2004) Building negotiation decision support systems by integrating game theory and heuristics. In: Proceedings of the IFIP international conference on decision support systems. Monash University, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E, Schild UJ, Mackenzie G (2007) Bargaining in the shadow of the law—using utility functions to support legal negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM, pp 237–246Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law, 3rd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Carneiro
    • 1
  • Paulo Novais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Francisco Andrade
    • 2
  • John Zeleznikow
    • 3
  • José Neves
    • 1
  1. 1.CCTC/Department of InformaticsUniversity of Minho BragaPortugal
  2. 2.Law SchoolUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.School of Management and Information SystemsVictoria UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations