Leila Amgoud
Henri Prade
ABSTRACT
Argumentation plays a key role in finding a compromise during a negotiation dialogue. It may lead an agent to change its goals/preferences and force it to respond in a particular way. Two types of arguments are mainly used for that purpose: threats and rewards. For example, if an agent receives a threat, this agent may accept the offer even if it is not fully "acceptable" for it (because otherwise really important goals would be threatened).The contribution of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, a logical setting that handles these two types of arguments is provided. More precisely, logical definitions of threats and rewards are proposed together with their weighting systems. These definitions take into account that negotiation dialogues involve not only agents' beliefs (of various strengths), but also their goals (having maybe different priorities), as well as the beliefs about the goals of other agents.On the other hand, a "simple" protocol for handling such arguments in a negotiation dialogue is given. This protocol shows when such arguments can be presented, how they are handled, and how they lead agents to change their goals and behaviors.
- L. Amgoud and C. Cayrol. Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. of Automated Reasoning, 29:125--169, 2002. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons. Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 31--38, Boston, MA, 2000. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Amgoud, S. Parsons, and N. Maudet. Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2000.Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Amgoud and H. Prade. Reaching agreement through argumentation: A possibilistic approach. In 9 th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler, Canada, 2004.Google Scholar
- P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321--357, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Kakas and P. Moraitis. Argumentative deliberation for autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the ECAI'02 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA'02), pages 65--74, 2002.Google Scholar
- S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik. Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation, volume 104. Artificial Intelligence, 1998. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. MacKenzie. Question- begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of philosophical logic, 8:117--133, 1979.Google Scholar
- S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261--292, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Rahwan, S. D. Ramchurn, N. R. Jennings, P. McBurney, S. Parsons, and L. Sonenberg. Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge engineering review, 2004. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Rahwan, L. Sonenberg, and F. Dignum. Towards interest-based negotiation. In AAMAS'2003. 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. D. Ramchurn, N. Jennings, and C. Sierra. Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: a rhetorical approach. In IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments, 2003.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Formal handling of threats and rewards in a negotiation dialogue
Recommendations
Formal handling of threats and rewards in a negotiation dialogue
ArgMAS'05: Proceedings of the Second international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent SystemsArgumentation plays a key role in finding a compromise during a negotiation dialogue. It may lead an agent to change its goals/ preferences and force it to respond in a particular way. Two types of arguments are mainly used for that purpose: threats and ...
Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation
AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systemsIn this paper, we study how argumentation can be used as a basis for negotiation between autonomous agents, where negotiation strategies of the different parties are represented as argumentation theories within their knowledge. We propose an ...
Characterizing the Outcomes of Argumentation-Based Integrative Negotiation
WI-IAT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 02In the negotiation literature we find two relatively distinct types of negotiation. The two types are known as integrative negotiations and distributive negotiations. Integrative negotiations are those where all sides are looking for solutions that are "...
Comments