Theory and Decision

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 289–311

Negotiation and Defeasible Decision Making

  • Fernando Tohmé
Article

Abstract

In economically meaningful interactions negotiations are particularly important because they allow agents to improve their information about the environment and even to change accordingly their own characteristics. In each step of a negotiation an agent has to emit a message. This message conveys information about her preferences and endowments. Given that the information she uses to decide which message to emit comes from beliefs generated in previous stages of the negotiation, she has to cope with the uncertainty associated with them. The assessment of the states of the world also evolves during the negotiation. In this paper we analyze the intertwined dynamics of beliefs and decision, in order to determine conditions on the agents that allow them to reach agreements. The framework for decision making we consider here is based on defeasible evaluation of possibilities: an argument for a choice defeats another one if it is based on a computation that better uses all the available information.

negotiation agreements defeasible argumentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abreu, D. and H. Matsushima, 1990, Virtual implementation in iteratively undominated strategies, Econometrica 60, 993–1008.Google Scholar
  2. Aumann, R. and A. Brandenburger, 1995, Epistemic foundations of Nash equilibrium, Econometrica 63, 1161–1180.Google Scholar
  3. Doyle, J., 1990, Rationality and its role in reasoning, Proceedings AAAI-90.Google Scholar
  4. Dung, P., 1995, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non-monotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.Google Scholar
  5. Fudenberg, D. and J. Tirole, 1991, Game Theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Halmos, P., 1960, Naive Set Theory, New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  7. Kraus, S., J. Wilkenfeld and G. Zlotkin, 1995, Multiagent negotiation under time constraints, Artificial Intelligence 75, 297–345.Google Scholar
  8. Loui, R., 1987, Defeat among arguments: a System of Defeasible Inference, Computational Intelligence 3, 100–106.Google Scholar
  9. Loui, R., 1990, Defeasible specification of utilities, in Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, H. Kyburg et al., (eds.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Loui, R., 1998, Process and policy: resource-bounded non-demonstrative reasoning, Computational Intelligence 14, 1–38.Google Scholar
  11. Moore, J., 1992, Implementation in economic environments with complete information, in Advances in Economic Theory, Laffont, J. (ed.), Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Myerson, R., 1991, Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sen, A., 1986, Social choice theory, in K. Arrow and M. Intriligator (eds.) Handbook of Mathematical Economics III, Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Simari, G. and R. Loui, 1992 A mathematical treatment of defeasible reasoning and its implementation, Artificial Intelligence 53, 125–157.Google Scholar
  15. Simon, H., 1982, Models of Bounded Rationality, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Sandholm, T. and V. Lesser, 1997, Coalitions among computationally bounded agents, Artificial Intelligence 94, 99–137.Google Scholar
  17. Stokey, N., R. Lucas, and E. Prescott, 1989, Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Tarski, A., 1955, A lattice-theoretical fixpoint theorem and its applications, Pacific Journal of Mathematics 5, 285–309.Google Scholar
  19. Tohmé, F., 1996, Negotiation as a Resource Allocation Process, Washington University in Saint Louis Computer Science Technical Report WUCS-96-22.Google Scholar
  20. Verheij, B., 1996, Rules, Reasons and Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, Ph.D. Thesis, Maastricht (The Netherlands): Maastricht University.Google Scholar
  21. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern, 1944, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Vreeswijk, G., 1991, The Feasibility of Defeat in Defeasible Reasoning, Proceedings Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.Google Scholar
  23. Vreeswijk, G., 1993, Studies in Defeasible Argumentation, Ph.D. thesis, Amsterdam: Free University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fernando Tohmé
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de EconomíaUniversidad del Sur, CONICETBahía BlancaArgentina

Personalised recommendations