Agreeing on Defeasible Commitments

  • Ioan Alfred Letia
  • Adrian Groza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4327)


Social commitments are developed for multi-agent systems according to the current practice in law regarding contract formation and breach. Deafeasible commitments are used to provide a useful link between multi-agent systems and legal doctrines. The proposed model makes the commitments more expressive relative to contract law and it stresses the representational rather than the operational side of the commitment life cycle. As a consequence, the broader semantics helps in modeling different types of contracts (gratuitous promises, unilateral contracts, bilateral contracts, and forward contracts) and negotiation patterns. The semantics of higher-order commitments is useful in deciding whether to sign an agreement or not and to represent a larger variety of protocols and legal contracts.


Multiagent System Social Commitment English Auction Forward Contract Bilateral Contract 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pasquier, P., Flores, R., Chaib-draa, B.: Modelling flexible social commitments and their enforcement. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Omicini, A., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3451, pp. 139–151. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mallya, A.U., Singh, M.P.: Modeling exceptions via commitment protocols. In: 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 122–129. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wan, F., Singh, M.: Formalizing and achieving multiparty agreements via commitments. In: 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 770–777. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Governatori, G., Rotolo, A., Sartor, G.: Temporalised normative positions in defeasible logic. In:10th International Conference on Artificial Inteligence and Law, Bologna, Italy, pp. 25–34 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Running contracts with defeasible commitment. In: Ali, M., Dapoigny, R. (eds.) IEA/AIE 2006. LNCS, vol. 4031, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandholm, T., Lesser, W.: Leveled commitment contracts and strategic breach. Games and Economic Behavior 35, 212–270 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagents systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Craswell, R.: Contract law: General theories. In: Bouckaert, B., Geest, G.D. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, The Regulation of Contracts, Cheltenham, vol. III, pp. 1–24 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Winikoff, M., Liu, W., Harland, J.: Enhancing commitment machines. In: Leite, J., Omicini, A., Torroni, P., Yolum, p. (eds.) DALT 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3476, pp. 198–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cox, B., Tygar, J., Sirbu, M.: Netbill security and transaction protocol. In: 1st USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, New York, pp. 77–88 (1995)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grosof, B.: Representing E-Commerce rules via situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 3(1), 2–20 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Governatori, G.: Representing business contracts in RuleML. Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 14(2–3), 181–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Contextualizing commitment protocols. In: 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Hakodate, Japan, pp. 1345–1352. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Reasoning about commitments in the event calculus: An approach for specifying and executing protocols. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 42(1–3), 227–253 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verdicchio, M., Colombetti, M.: A commitment-based communicative act library. In: 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands, pp. 755–761. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Udupi, Y.B., Singh, M.P.: Contract enactment in virtual organizations: A commitment-based approach. In: 21st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Boston, Massachusetts. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ioan Alfred Letia
    • 1
  • Adrian Groza
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceTechnical University of Cluj-NapocaCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations