David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (1):133-151 (2005)
This paper outlines a multi-agent architecture for regulated information exchange of crime investigation data between police forces. Interactions between police officers about information exchange are analysed as negotiation dialogues with embedded persuasion dialogues. An architecture is then proposed consisting of two agents, a requesting agent and a responding agent, and a communication language and protocol with which these agents can interact to promote optimal information exchange while respecting the law. Finally, dialogue policies are defined for the individual agents, specifying their behaviour within a negotiation. Essentially, when deciding to accept or reject an offer or to make a counteroffer, an agent first determines whether it is obligatory or permitted to perform the actions specified in the offer. If permitted but not obligatory, the agent next determines whether it is in his interest to accept the offer.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons (2002). Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues Between Autonomous Agents. [REVIEW] Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11 (3):315-334.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Chris M. Bell & Kelley J. Main (2011). Deonance and Distrust: Motivated Third Party Information Seeking Following Disclosure of an Agent's Unethical Behavior. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 102 (1):77-96.
Paul Piwek (2007). Meaning and Dialogue Coherence: A Proof-Theoretic Investigation. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 16 (4):403-421.
Lucas Drumond & Rosario Girardi (2008). A Multi-Agent Legal Recommender System. Artificial Intelligence and Law 16 (2):175-207.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229 - 275.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229-275.
Frances Brazier, Anja Oskamp, Corien Prins, Maurice Schellekens & Niek Wijngaards (2004). Law-Abiding and Integrity on the Internet: A Case for Agents. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (1-2):5-37.
Wiebe van Der Hoek & Elias Thijsse (2002). A General Approach to Multi-Agent Minimal Knowledge: With Tools and Samples. Studia Logica 72 (1):61 - 84.
Wiebe van der Hoek & Elias Thijsse (2002). A General Approach to Multi-Agent Minimal Knowledge: With Tools and Samples. Studia Logica 72 (1):61-84.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #440,892 of 1,101,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #292,019 of 1,101,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?