skip to main content
research-article
Open Access

Nova: Value-based Negotiation of Norms

Published:01 August 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Specifying a normative multiagent system (nMAS) is challenging, because different agents often have conflicting requirements. Whereas existing approaches can resolve clear-cut conflicts, tradeoffs might occur in practice among alternative nMAS specifications with no apparent resolution. To produce an nMAS specification that is acceptable to each agent, we model the specification process as a negotiation over a set of norms. We propose an agent-based negotiation framework, where agents’ requirements are represented as values (e.g., patient safety, privacy, and national security), and an agent revises the nMAS specification to promote its values by executing a set of norm revision rules that incorporate ontology-based reasoning. To demonstrate that our framework supports creating a transparent and accountable nMAS specification, we conduct an experiment with human participants who negotiate against our agent. Our findings show that our negotiation agent reaches better agreements (with small p-value and large effect size) faster than a baseline strategy. Moreover, participants perceive that our agent enables more collaborative and transparent negotiations than the baseline (with small p-value and large effect size in particular settings) toward reaching an agreement.

References

  1. AIHLEG. 2019. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. (2019). High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60419.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Nirav Ajmeri, Jiaming Jiang, Rada Y. Chirkova, Jon Doyle, and Munindar P. Singh. 2016. Coco: Runtime reasoning about conflicting commitments. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16). 17–23. https://www.ijcai.org/Abstract/16/010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Huib Aldewereld, Virginia Dignum, and Wamberto W. Vasconcelos. 2016. Group norms for multi-agent organisations. ACM Trans. Autonom. Adapt. Syst. 11, 2 (2016), 1–31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Natasha Alechina, Mehdi Dastani, and Brian Logan. 2013. Reasoning about normative update. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13). 20–26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Reyhan Aydoğan, David Festen, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2017. Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation. In Modern Approaches to Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, Katsuhide Fujita, Quan Bai, Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Fenghui Ren, Reyhan Aydoğan, and Rafik Hadfi (Eds.). Number 674 in Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, Cham, 153–167. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51563-2_10Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Reyhan Aydoğan, Tim Baarslag, Koen V. Hindriks, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Pınar Yolum. 2015. Heuristics for using CP-nets in utility-based negotiation without knowing utilities. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 45, 2 (2015), 357–388. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Reyhan Aydoğan, Nuri Taşdemir, and Pınar Yolum. 2010. Reasoning and negotiating with complex preferences using CP-nets. In Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce and Trading Agent Design and Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 15–28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Reyhan Aydoğan and Pınar Yolum. 2007. Learning consumer preferences using semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 1293–1300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Reyhan Aydoğan and Pınar Yolum. 2012. Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: An approach based on concept learning. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 24, 1 (2012), 104–140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Tim Baarslag, Enrico H. Gerding, Reyhan Aydoğan, and M. C. Schraefel. 2015. Optimal negotiation decision functions in time-sensitive domains. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT’15), Vol. 2. IEEE, 190–197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Tim Baarslag, Mark J. C. Hendrikx, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2016. Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: A comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques. Auton. Agent Multi Agent Syst. 30, 5 (2016), 849–898. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Tim Baarslag and Michael Kaisers. 2017. The value of information in automated negotiation: A decision model for eliciting user preferences. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 391–400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Tim Baarslag, Michael Kaisers, Enrico H. Gerding, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Jonathan Gratch. 2017. When will negotiation agents be able to represent us? The challenges and opportunities for autonomous negotiators. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 4684–4690. DOI:https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/653 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Mathieu Beirlaen and Christian Straßer. 2014. Non-monotonic reasoning with normative conflicts in multi-agent deontic logic. J. Logic Comput. 24, 6 (2014), 1179–1207.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Christoph Benzmüller, Xavier Parent, and Leendert van der Torre. 2018. A deontic logic reasoning infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computability in Europe. Springer, 60–69.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Guido Boella, Patrice Caire, and Leendert van der Torre. 2009. Norm negotiation in online multi-player games. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 18, 2 (2009), 137–156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Craig Boutilier, Ronen I. Brafman, Carmel Domshlak, Holger H. Hoos, and David Poole. 2004. CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 21 (2004), 135–191. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Peter J. Carnevale and Tahira M. Probst. 1998. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 5 (1998), 1300.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Federico Chesani, Paola Mello, Marco Montali, and Paolo Torroni. 2013. Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 27, 1 (Jul. 2013), 85–130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Amit K. Chopra, Fabiano Dalpiaz, F. Başak Aydemir, Paolo Giorgini, John Mylopoulos, and Munindar P. Singh. 2014. Protos: Foundations for engineering innovative sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE Computer Society, 53–62. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2014.6912247Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Natalia Criado, Estefania Argente, Pablo Noriega, and Vicente Botti. 2013. MaNEA: A distributed architecture for enforcing norms in open MAS. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26, 1 (Jan. 2013), 76–95. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dave de Jonge, Tim Baarslag, Reyhan Aydoğan, Catholijn M. Jonker, Katsuhide Fujita, and Takayuki Ito. 2018. The challenge of negotiation in the game of diplomacy. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Agreement Technologies. Springer International Publishing, 100–114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pieter Dijkstra, Henry Prakken, and Kees de Vey Mestdagh. 2007. An implementation of norm-based agent negotiation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, 167–175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Sohan Dsouza, Ya’akov K. Gal, Philippe Pasquier, Sherief Abdallah, and Iyad Rahwan. 2013. Reasoning about goal revelation in human negotiation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28, 2 (2013), 74–80. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2011.93 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 2 (1995), 321–357. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Mohamed El-Menshawy, Jamal Bentahar, Warda El Kholy, Pinar Yolum, and Rachida Dssouli. 2015. Computational logics and verification techniques of multi-agent commitments: Survey. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 30, 5 (Nov. 2015), 564–606.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nick R. Jennings. 1998. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot. Auton. Syst. 24, 3 (1998), 159–182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Shaheen Fatima, Sarit Kraus, and Michael Wooldridge. 2014. Principles of Automated Negotiation (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1983. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books, New York. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Georgios K. Giannikis and Aspassia Daskalopulu. 2011. Normative conflicts in electronic contracts. Electr. Commerce Res. Appl. 10, 2 (2011), 247–267. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Guido Governatori. 2013. Business process compliance: An abstract normative framework. Inf. Technol. 55, 6 (2013), 231–238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Robert J. Grissom and John J. Kim. 2012. Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and Multivariate Applications. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nicola Guarino. 1998. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (1st ed.). IOS Press, Amsterdam. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Akın Günay and Pınar Yolum. 2013. Constraint satisfaction as a tool for modeling and checking feasibility of multiagent commitments. Appl. Intell. 39, 3 (Oct. 2013), 489–509. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Michael Hack. 2016. The implications of Apple’s battle with the FBI. Netw. Secur. 2016, 7 (2016), 8–10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. HHS. 2014. Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations. (2014). United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Koen V. Hindriks and Dmytro Tykhonov. 2008. Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 331–338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. 1919. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Myles Hollander and Douglas A. Wolfe. 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Wiley, New York. 98003314Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Catholijn M. Jonker, Reyhan Aydoğan, Tim Baarslag, Katsuhide Fujita, Takayuki Ito, and Koen V. Hindriks. 2017. Automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC). In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17). AAAI Press, 5070–5072. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Özgür Kafalı, Nirav Ajmeri, and Munindar P. Singh. 2016. Revani: Revising and verifying normative specifications for privacy. IEEE Intell. Syst. 31, 5 (Sep. 2016), 8–15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2016.89Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Özgür Kafalı, Nirav Ajmeri, and Munindar P. Singh. 2017. Kont: Computing tradeoffs in normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17). AAAI, 3006–3012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Özgür Kafalı, Nirav Ajmeri, and Munindar P. Singh. 2020. Desen: Specification of sociotechnical systems via patterns of regulation and control. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 1 (Feb. 2020), 7:1–7:50. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3365664 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Özgür Kafalı and Paolo Torroni. 2012. Exception diagnosis in multiagent contract executions. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 64, 1 (Jan. 2012), 73–107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Özgür Kafalı and Pınar Yolum. 2016. Pisagor: A proactive software agent for monitoring interactions. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 47, 1 (Apr. 2016), 215–239. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Thomas C. King, Tingting Li, Marina De Vos, Virginia Dignum, Catholijn M. Jonker, Julian Padget, and B. Birna van Riemsdijk. 2015. A framework for institutions governing institutions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS’15). IFAAMAS, 473–481. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Martin J. Kollingbaum, Timothy J. Norman, Alun Preece, and Derek Sleeman. 2006. Norm refinement: Informing the re-negotiation of contracts. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems. IFAAMAS, 46–51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Srdjan Marinovic, Naranker Dulay, and Morris Sloman. 2014. Rumpole: An introspective break-glass access control language. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 17, 1 (Aug. 2014), 2:1–2:31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Ivan Marsá-Maestre, Miguel A. López-Carmona, Mark Klein, Takayuki Ito, and Katsuhide Fujita. 2014. Addressing utility space complexity in negotiations involving highly uncorrelated, constraint-based utility spaces. Comput. Intell. 30, 1 (2014), 1–29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Sanjay Modgil and Michael Luck. 2008. Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals. In International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems. Springer, 19–36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Andreasa Morris-Martin, Marina De Vos, and Julian Padget. 2019. Norm emergence in multiagent systems: A viewpoint paper. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 33, 6 (2019), 706–749.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Asma Moubaiddin and Nadim Obeid. 2013. On formalizing social commitments in dialogue and argumentation models using temporal defeasible logic. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 37, 2 (2013), 417–452.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Luis G. Nardin, Tina Balke-Visser, Nirav Ajmeri, Anup K. Kalia, Jaime S. Sichman, and Munindar P. Singh. 2016. Classifying sanctions and designing a conceptual sanctioning process model for socio-technical systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 31, 2 (Mar. 2016), 142–166. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Gauthier Picard, Camille Persson, Olivier Boissier, and Fano Ramparany. 2015. Multi-agent self-organization and reorganization to adapt M2M infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. IEEE, 91–100. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Iyad Rahwan, Liz Sonenberg, and Frank Dignum. 2003. Towards interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 773–780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Régis Riveret, Yang Gao, Guido Governatori, Antonino Rotolo, Jeremy Pitt, and Giovanni Sartor. 2019. A probabilistic argumentation framework for reinforcement learning agents. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 33, 1 (2019), 216–274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Ariel Rubinstein. 1992. The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under “almost common knowledge.” In Knowledge, Belief, and Strategic Interaction, Cristina Bicchieri and Maria Luisa Dalla Chiara (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 317–326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Jéssica S. Santos, Jean O. Zahn, Eduardo A. Silvestre, Viviane T. Silva, and Wamberto W. Vasconcelos. 2017. Detection and resolution of normative conflicts in multi-agent systems: A literature survey. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 31, 6 (2017), 1236–1282. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Marek Sergot. 2013. Normative positions. In Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, Dov Gabbay, John Horty, Ron van der Meyden, Xavier Parent, and Leendvert van der Torre (Eds.). College Publications, London, 353–406.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Munindar P. Singh. 2013. Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 5, 1 (Dec. 2013), 21:1–21:23. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2542182.2542203 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Okan Tunalı, Reyhan Aydoğan, and Victor Sanchez-Anguix. 2017. Rethinking frequency opponent modeling in automated negotiation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. Springer International Publishing, 263–279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. Rustam Vahidov, Gregory E. Kersten, and Bo Yu. 2017. Human-agent negotiations: the impact agents’ concession schedule and task complexity on agreements. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’17). HISCSS Press, 412–420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Leendert van der Torre and Serena Villata. 2014. An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. IOS Press, 266–421.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. W. Fred Van Raaij and Theo M. M. Verhallen. 1994. Domain-specific market segmentation. Eur. J. Market. 28, 10 (1994), 49–66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. Wamberto W. Vasconcelos, Martin J. Kollingbaum, and Timothy J. Norman. 2009. Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 19, 2 (Oct. 2009), 124–152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Georg Henrik Von Wright. 1963. Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Humanities Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Georg Henrik Von Wright. 1999. Deontic Logic: A personal view. Ratio Juris 12, 1 (Mar. 1999), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00106Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nick R. Jennings. 2013. Iamhaggler2011: A gaussian process regression based negotiation agent. In Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions. Springer, Berlin, 209–212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Qi Zhang, Edmund H. Durfee, Satinder P. Singh, Anna Chen, and Stefan J. Witwicki. 2016. Commitment semantics for sequential decision making under reward uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 3315–3323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Nova: Value-based Negotiation of Norms

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology
          ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology  Volume 12, Issue 4
          August 2021
          368 pages
          ISSN:2157-6904
          EISSN:2157-6912
          DOI:10.1145/3468075
          • Editor:
          • Huan Liu
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 Association for Computing Machinery.

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 August 2021
          • Accepted: 1 May 2021
          • Revised: 1 February 2021
          • Received: 1 June 2020
          Published in tist Volume 12, Issue 4

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format