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.
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nick R. Jennings. 1998. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot. Auton. Syst. 24, 3 (1998), 159–182.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shaheen Fatima, Sarit Kraus, and Michael Wooldridge. 2014. Principles of Automated Negotiation (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1983. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books, New York. Google Scholar
- Georgios K. Giannikis and Aspassia Daskalopulu. 2011. Normative conflicts in electronic contracts. Electr. Commerce Res. Appl. 10, 2 (2011), 247–267. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guido Governatori. 2013. Business process compliance: An abstract normative framework. Inf. Technol. 55, 6 (2013), 231–238.Google Scholar
- Robert J. Grissom and John J. Kim. 2012. Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and Multivariate Applications. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.Google Scholar
- Nicola Guarino. 1998. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (1st ed.). IOS Press, Amsterdam. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Hack. 2016. The implications of Apple’s battle with the FBI. Netw. Secur. 2016, 7 (2016), 8–10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. 1919. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Google Scholar
- Myles Hollander and Douglas A. Wolfe. 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Wiley, New York. 98003314Google Scholar
- John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Özgür Kafalı and Paolo Torroni. 2012. Exception diagnosis in multiagent contract executions. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 64, 1 (Jan. 2012), 73–107. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Özgür Kafalı and Pınar Yolum. 2016. Pisagor: A proactive software agent for monitoring interactions. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 47, 1 (Apr. 2016), 215–239. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- W. Fred Van Raaij and Theo M. M. Verhallen. 1994. Domain-specific market segmentation. Eur. J. Market. 28, 10 (1994), 49–66.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Georg Henrik Von Wright. 1963. Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Humanities Press, New York.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Nova: Value-based Negotiation of Norms
Recommendations
Conflict-based negotiation strategy for human-agent negotiation
AbstractDay by day, human-agent negotiation becomes more and more vital to reach a socially beneficial agreement when stakeholders need to make a joint decision together. Developing agents who understand not only human preferences but also attitudes is a ...
Solver Agent: Towards Emotional and Opponent-Aware Agent for Human-Robot Negotiation
AAMAS '21: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent SystemsNegotiation is one of the crucial processes for resolving conflicts between parties. In automated negotiation, agent designers mostly take opponent's offers and the remaining time into account while designing their strategies. While designing a ...
AN Using Local Search in Multi-issue Bilateral and Repeated Negotiation
PRIMA 2022: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent SystemsAbstractDesigning an automated agent for Human-Agent Negotiation is a challenging task. Especially in the domain that combines multi-issue bilateral negotiations and repeated negotiations. In this domain, the agents negotiate with humans over more than ...
Comments