Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 235–273

A Dialogue Game Protocol for Agent Purchase Negotiations

  • Peter McBurney
  • Rogier M. Van Eijk
  • Simon Parsons
  • Leila Amgoud
Article

Abstract

We propose a dialogue game protocol for purchase negotiation dialogues which identifies appropriate speech acts, defines constraints on their utterances, and specifies the different sub-tasks agents need to perform in order to engage in dialogues according to this protocol. Our formalism combines a dialogue game similar to those in the philosophy of argumentation with a model of rational consumer purchase decision behaviour adopted from marketing theory. In addition to the dialogue game protocol, we present a portfolio of decision mechanisms for the participating agents engaged in the dialogue and use these to provide our formalism with an operational semantics. We show that these decision mechanisms are sufficient to generate automated purchase decision dialogues between autonomous software agents interacting according to our proposed dialogue game protocol.

argumentation autonomous agents consumer decision-making dialogue games negotiation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Amgoud, N. Maudet, and S. Parsons, “Modelling dialogues using argumentation,” in E. Durfee, (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 2000), Boston, MA, USA: IEEE Press, pp. 31-38, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    L. Amgoud, S. Parsons, and N. Maudet, “Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation,” in W. Horn, (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), Berlin, Germany: IOS Press, pp. 338- 342, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Barbuceanu and W.-K. Lo, “A multi-attribute utility theoretic negotiation architecture for electronic commerce,” in C. Sierra, M. Gini, and J. S. Rosenschein, (eds.), Agents 2000: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 239- 246, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. A. Bourne and R. Zaidi, “A quote-driven automated market,” in M. Schroeder and K. Stathis, (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Agents for E-Commerce, Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour (AISB-01), York, UK: AISB, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. P. Corfman and S. Gupta, “Mathematical models of group choice and negotiation,” in J. Eliashberg and G. L. Lilien, (eds.), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Volume 5: Marketing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 83- 142, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Kęplicz, and R. Verbrugge, “Agent theory for team formation by dialogue,” in C. Castelfranchi and Y. Lespérance, (eds.), Pre-Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-2000), Boston, USA, pp. 141-156, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Dignum, B. Dunin-Kęplicz, and R. Verbrugge, “Creating collective intention through dialogue,” Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 9, no.2, pp. 305-319, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Dürrenmatt, A Dangerous Game, Jonathan Cape: London, UK, 1960. (Translation by R. and C. Winston of Die Panne, published in German in 1956.)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. van Eijk, “Programming languages for agent communications,” PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, Utrecht University: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Faratin, “Automated service negotiation between autonomous computational agents,” PhD thesis, Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary andWestfield College, University of London: London, UK, 2000.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Faratin, C. Sierra, and N. Jennings, “Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs,” in E. Durfee, (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 2000), Boston, MA, USA: IEEE Press, pp. 119- 126, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    FIPA. Communicative Act Library Specification. Technical Report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, 10 August 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. E. Green and A. M. Krieger, “Conjoint analysis with product-positioning applications,” in J. Eliashberg and G. L. Lilien, (eds.), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Volume 5: Marketing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 467- 516, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. J. Grosz and C. L. Sidner, “Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse,” Computational Linguistics, vol. 12, no.3, pp. 175- 204, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Guerin and J. Pitt, “Denotational semantics for agent communication languages,” in J. P. Müller, E. Andre, S. Sen, and C. Frasson, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 497- 504, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. L. Hamblin, Fallacies, Methuen and Co Ltd: London, UK, 1970.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. L. Hamblin, “Mathematical models of dialogue,” Theoria, vol. 37, pp. 130- 155, 1971.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. R. Hauser and B. Wernerfelt, “An evaluation cost model of consideration sets,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 16, pp. 393- 408, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    K. V. Hindriks, F. S. de Boer, W. van der Hoek, and J.-J. Ch. Meyer, “Formal semantics for an abstract agent progamming language,” in M. P. Singh, A. S. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge, (eds.), Intelligent Agents IV, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1365, Springer: Berlin, Germany, pp. 215- 229, 1998.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Hitchcock, “Some principles of rational mutual inquiry,” in F. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SICSAT: International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 236-243, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D. Hitchcock, P. McBurney, and S. Parsons, “A framework for deliberation dialogues,” in H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, and R. H. Johnson, (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Hulstijn, “Dialogue models for inquiry and transaction,” PhD thesis, Universiteit Twente: The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    N. R. Jennings, P. Faratin, A. R. Lomuscio, S. Parsons, M. Wooldridge, and C. Sierra, “Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges,” International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 10, no.2, pp. 199-215, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press: New York City, NY, USA, 1993. First published in 1976.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. O. Kephart and A. R. Greenwald, “Probabilistic pricebots,” in S. Parsons and P. Gmytrasiewicz, (eds.), Game-Theoretic and Decision-Theoretic Agents: Proceedings of the 2001 AAAI Spring Symposium, AAAI Press: Menlo Park, CA, USA, pp. 37-44, 2001. Technical Report SS-01-03.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik, “Reaching agreement through argumentation: a logical model and implementation,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 104, pp. 1 -69, 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Kuflik, “Computers in control: rational transfer of authority or irresponsible abdication of autonomy,” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 1, no.3, pp. 173- 184, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. J. Lancaster, “A new approach to consumer theory,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 74, pp. 132-157, 1966.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. J. Lancaster, Consumer Demand: A New Approach, Columbia University Press: New York City, NY, USA, 1971.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. L. Lilien, P. Kotler, and K. S. Moorthy, Marketing Models, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1992.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. E. Lochbaum, “A collaborative planning model of intentional structure,” Computational Linguistics, vol. 24, no.4, pp. 525-572, 1998.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A. R. Lomuscio, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, “A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce,” in F. Dignum and C. Sierra, (eds,), Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce: The European AgentLink Perspective, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1991, Springer: Berlin, Germany, pp. 19-33, 2001.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. D. MacKenzie, “Question-begging in non-cumulative systems,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 8, pp. 117-133, 1979.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    N. Maudet and F. Evrard, “A generic framework for dialogue game implementation,” in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Formal Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialog, Thirteenth International Twente Workshop on Language Technology (TWLT 13), Universite Twente, The Netherlands: Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, 1998.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons, “Risk agoras: Dialectical argumentation for scientific reasoning,” in C. Boutilier and M. Goldszmidt, (eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2000), San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 371-379, 2000.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons, “Chance discovery using dialectical argumentation,” in T. Terano, T. Nishida, A. Namatame, S. Tsumoto, Y. Ohsawa, and T. Washio, (eds.), New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence: Joint JSAI 2001 Workshop Post Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2253, Springer: Berlin, Germany, pp. 414-424, 2001.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons, “Representing epistemic uncertainty by means of dialectical argumentation,” Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, nos.1 -4, pp. 125-169, 2001.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    P. McBurney and S. Parsons, “Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents,” Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 11, no.3, pp. 315- 334, 2002.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    J. Moor, “Are there decisions computers should never make?” Nature and System, vol. 1, pp. 217- 229, 1979.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    P. Noriega and C. Sierra, “Towards layered dialogical agents,” in J. P. Müller, M. J. Wooldridge, N. R. Jennings, (eds.), Intelligent Agents III: Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1193, Springer: Berlin, Germany, pp. 173- 188, 1997.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings, “Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing,” Journal of Logic and Computation, vol. 8, no.3, pp. 261-292, 1998.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    M. E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    C. Reed, “Dialogue frames in agent communications,” in Y. Demazeau, (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98), IEEE Press, pp. 246-253, 1998.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    H. S. Richardson, Practical Reasoning about Final Ends, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    J. H. Roberts and J. M. Lattin, “Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 28, pp. 429-440, 1991.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    J. H. Roberts and G. L. Lilien, “Explanatory and predictive models of consumer behavior,” in J. Eliashberg and G. L. Lilien, (eds.), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Volume 5: Marketing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 27-82, 1993.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    S. Russell and E. Wefald, Do The Right Thing: Studies in Limited Rationality, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    F. Sadri, F. Toni, and P. Torroni, “Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: An abductive approach,” in M. Schroeder and K. Stathis, (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Information Agents for E-Commercie, Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour Conference (AISB-2001), York, UK: AISB, 2001.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    M. C. Schut and M. J. Wooldridge, “Intention reconsideration in complex environments,” in C. Sierra, M. Gini, and J. Rosenschein, (eds.), Agents 2000: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, New York, NY, USA: ACM Press, pp. 209- 216, 2000.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    S. M. Shugan, “The cost of thinking,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 7, pp. 99-111, 1980.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    C. Sierra, N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons, “A framework for argumentation-based negotiations,” in M. P. Singh, A. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge, (eds.), Intelligent Agents IV, Springer: Berlin, Germany, pp. 177-192, 1998.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    M. P. Singh, “A social semantics for agent communications languages,” in F. Dignum, B. Chaib-draa and H. Weigand, (eds.), Proceedings of the IJCAI-99 Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2000.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    K. Sycara, “Persuasive argumentation in negotiation,” Theory and Decision, vol. 28, pp. 203-242, 1990.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    G. L. Urban, J. R. Hauser, and J. H. Roberts, “Prelaunch forecasting of new automobiles,” Management Science, vol. 36, no.4, pp. 401- 421, 1990.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    D. N. Walton and E. C. W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Series in Logic and Language, State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1995.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Y. Wind and G. L. Lilien, “Marketing strategy models,” in J. Eliashberg and G. L. Lilien, (eds.), Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science: Volume 5: Marketing, North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 773-826, 1993.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    D. R. Wittink and P. Cattin, “Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 53, pp. 91-96, 1989.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    M. Wooldridge, “Semantic issues in the verification of agent communication languages,” Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 9 -31, 2000.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    M. Wooldridge and S. Parsons, “Languages for negotiation,” in W. Horn, (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), Berlin, Germany: IOS Press, pp. 393-397, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter McBurney
    • 1
  • Rogier M. Van Eijk
    • 2
  • Simon Parsons
    • 3
  • Leila Amgoud
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Institute of Information and Computing SciencesUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Center for Co-ordination Science, Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de ToulouseUniversité Paul SabatierToulouse, Cedex 4France

Personalised recommendations