Advertisement

An Agent Model of Business Relationships

  • John Debenham
  • Carles Sierra
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6262)

Abstract

Relationships are fundamental to all but the most impersonal forms of interaction in business. An agent aims to secure projected needs by attempting to build a set of (business) relationships with other agents. A relationship is built by exchanging private information, and is characterised by its intimacy — degree of closeness — and balance — degree of fairness. Each argumentative interaction between two agents then has two goals: to satisfy some immediate need, and to do so in a way that develops the relationship in a desired direction. An agent’s desire to develop each relationship in a particular way then places constraints on the argumentative utterances. This paper describes argumentative interaction constrained by a desire to develop such relationships.

Keywords

Multiagent System World Model Business Relationship Negotiation Strategy Epistemic Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiation. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 142, 205–237 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenschein, J.S., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giménez, E., Godo, L., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., Garcia, P.: Designing bidding strategies for trading agents in electronic auctions. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 136–143 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kraus, S.: Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artificial Intelligence 94, 79–97 (1997)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sierra, C., Jennings, N., Noriega, P., Parsons, S.: A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation. In: Rao, A., Singh, M.P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) ATAL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1365, pp. 177–192. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.: Information-based agency. In: Proceedings of Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2007, Hyderabad, India, pp. 1513–1518 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Arcos, J.L., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez, J.A., Sierra, C.: Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, M.: IF-Map: An ontology-mapping method based on information-flow theory. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 98–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, Y., Bandar, Z.A., McLean, D.: An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 871–882 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adams, J.S.: Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 2. Academic Press, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sondak, H., Neale, M.A., Pinkley, R.: The negotiated allocations of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 249–260 (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Valley, K.L., Neale, M.A., Mannix, E.A.: Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: The effects of relationships on the process and outcome of negotiations. In: Bies, R., Lewicki, R., Sheppard, B. (eds.) Research in Negotiation in Organizations, vol. 5, pp. 65–94. JAI Press (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bazerman, M.H., Loewenstein, G.F., White, S.B.: Reversal of preference in allocation decisions: judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administration Science Quarterly, 220–240 (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myerson, R., Satterthwaite, M.: Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory 29, 1–21 (1983)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Debenham, J.: Bargaining with information. In: Jennings, N., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., Tambe, M. (eds.) Proceedings of Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS-2004, pp. 664–671. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.: Information-based reputation. In: Paolucci, M. (ed.) First International Conference on Reputation: Theory and Technology (ICORE 2009), Gargonza, Italy, pp. 5–19 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Debenham
    • 1
  • Carles Sierra
    • 2
  1. 1.QCISUniversity of TechnologySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Institut d’Investigació en Intel ligència Artificial - IIIASpanish Scientific Research Council, CSICBellaterraSpain

Personalised recommendations