Abstract
One form of argument-based negotiation is when agents argue about why an offer was rejected. If an agent can state a reason for a rejection of an offer, the negotiation process may become more efficient since the other agent can take this reason into account when making new offers. Also, if a reason for rejection can be disputed, the negotiation process may be of higher quality since flawed reasons may be revised as a result. This paper presents a formal protocol for negotiation in which reasons can be asked and given for rejections and in which agents can try to persuade each other that a reason is or is not acceptable. The protocol is modelled as a persuasion dialogue game embedded in a negotiation protocol. It has a social semantics since the protocol does not refer to the internal state of negotiating agents.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18, 343–375 (2003)
Singh, M.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31, 40–47 (1998)
Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 338–342 (2000)
Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: Languages for negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 393–400 (2000)
Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15 (to appear, 2005)
Prakken, H.: On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)
Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)
Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)
Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)
Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)
Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable argument. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)
Pollock, J.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)
Dung, P.: Logic programming as dialog game. Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok (1994)
Mackenzie, J.: Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133 (1979)
McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 315–343 (2002)
Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)
Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 125–165 (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
van Veenen, J., Prakken, H. (2006). A Protocol for Arguing About Rejections in Negotiation. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4049. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36355-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36356-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)