Argumentation–Based Negotiation? Negotiation–Based Argumentation!

  • Jürgen Landes
  • Ricardo Buettner
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 123)

Abstract

We design a protocol for two autonomous negotiating agents to incorporate Dung-style argumentation into an ongoing bargaining dialogue. Previous approaches considered bargaining and Dung-Style Argumentation as separated components, we show that intertwining these approaches increases the agents scope of action. In our framework the acceptance of an argument or attack uttered by self-interested agents is conditional on the acceptance by the negotiating partner. Our protocol thus enables autonomous agents to engage in a variety of human negotiation behaviours and thereby increase the agents capabilities to come to mutually satisfactory agreements.

Keywords

Dung-Style Argumentation Negotiation Multi-Agent System Autonomous Agents Protocol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of NMR-UF, pp. 1–9 (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 158:1–158:8. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) Proceedings of ECAI, pp. 338–342. IOS Press (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: On Revising Argumentation-Based Decision Systems. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 71–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anandalingam, G., Day, R.W., Raghavan, S.: The Landscape of Electronic Market Design. Manage Sci. 51(3), 316–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkinson, K.: Value-Based Argumentation for Democratic Decision Support. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 47–58. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bench-Capon, T.: Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values. Informal Logic 22(3), 231–245 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bench-Capon, T.J., Doutre, S., Dunne, P.E.: Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 171(1), 42–71 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bench-Capon, T.J., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 619–641 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M., Hacohen, G.: Traditions of dispute: from negotiations of talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. J. Pragmatics 34(10-11), 1569–1594 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boella, G., Gabbay, D., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica 93, 297–355 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Attack Refinement and the Grounded Extension (Extended Version). In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 150–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brewka, G.: Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. J. Logic Comput. 11(2), 257–282 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Argumentation Context Systems: A Framework for Abstract Group Argumentation. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents, pp. 9–16. ACM (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Caminada, M.: Semi-Stable Semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA, vol. 144, pp. 121–130. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst. 22, 64–102 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Handling Ignorance in Argumentation: Semantics of Partial Argumentation Frameworks. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 259–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Revision of an Argumentation System. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 124–134 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chesñevar, C.I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G.R., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an Argument Interchange Format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(4), 293–316 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Coase, R.H.: The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4(16), 386–405 (1937)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coase, R.H.: The Problem of Social Cost. J. Law Econ. 3(1), 1–44 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 730–753 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. In: Proceedings of ICTAI, pp. 568–572 (2005)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis, R., Smith, R.G.: Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artif. Intell. 20(1), 63–109 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 852–857. Morgan Kaufmann (1993)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 145–156. IOS Press (2006)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation. Artif. Intell. 152(1), 1–45 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin (1981)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9-10), 1479–1497 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haenni, R., Romeijn, J.W., Wheeler, G., Williamson, J.: Probabilistic Argumentation. In: Probabilistic Logics and Probabilistic Networks, Synthese Library, vol. 350. Springer (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jennings, N.R., Parsons, S., Noriega, P., Sierra, C.: On Argumentation-Based Negotiation. In: Proceedings of IWMAS, pp. 1–7 (1998)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Sierra, C.: Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. Group Decis. Negot. 10, 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Johnson, M.W., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A Mathematical Model of Dialog. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 141(5), 33–48 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R.: Is It Worth Arguing? In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 234–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kośmicki, P.: A Platform for the Evaluation of Automated Argumentation Strategies. In: Szczuka, M., Kryszkiewicz, M., Ramanna, S., Jensen, R., Hu, Q. (eds.) RSCTC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6086, pp. 494–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell. 104(1-2), 1–69 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Minton, J., Roy, J., Lewicki, N.: Negotiation, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lomuscio, A.R., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce. Group Decis. Negot. 12, 31–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lopes, F., Coelho, H.: Strategic and Tactical Behaviour in Automated Negotiation. Int. J. Artif. Intel.l 4(S 10), 35–63 (2010)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lopes, F., Wooldridge, M., Novais, A.: Negotiation among autonomous computational agents: principles, analysis and challenges. Artif. Intell. Rev. 29, 1–44 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mackenzie, J.D.: Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems. J. Philos Logic 8(1), 117–133 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22(1), 95–132 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 11, 315–334 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Desiderata for Agent Argumentation Protocols. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 402–409 (2002)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 175(14-15), 1985–2009 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Oren, N., Norman, T., Preece, A.: Information Based Argumentation Heuristics. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 161–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Precce, A.: Subjective logic and arguing with evidence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 838–854 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Paglieri, F., Castelfranchi, C.: Why argue? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation 1(1), 71–91 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Parsons, S., Jennings, N.: Negotiation through argumentation - a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of ICMAS, pp. 267–274 (1996)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing. J. Logic Comput. 8(3), 261–292 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Prakken, H.: Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 1031–1038 (2008)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: A formal analysis of interest-based negotiation. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 55, 253–276 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N.R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(04), 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., McBurney, P.: Bargaining and Argument-Based Negotiation: Some Preliminary Comparisons. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press (2002)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rao, A., Georgeff, M., et al.: BDI agents: From theory to practice. In: Proceedings ICMAS, pp. 312–319 (1995)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Reyes-Moro, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., López-Sánchez, M., Cerquides, J., Gutierrez-Magallanes, D.: Embedding Decision Support in E-Sourcing Tools: Quotes, A Case Study. Group Decis. Negot. 12(4), 347–355 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rosenschein, J.S., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. MIT Press (1994)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible Argumentation Support for an Extended BDI Architecture. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 145–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rueda, S.V., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based Negotiation among BDI agents. J. Comp. Sci. & Technol. 2(7), 1–8 (2002)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rueda, S.V., Martinez, M.V.: A framework for deliberation and negotiation among BDI agents. J. Comp. Sci. & Technol. 5(4), 334–341 (2005)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sandholm, T.W.: Distributed Rational Decision Making. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, ch.5, pp. 201–258. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schmid, B., Lindemann, M.A.: Elements of a Reference Model for Electronic Markets. In: Proceedings of HICSS, pp. 193–201 (1998)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge Univerity Press (1969)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    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
  79. 79.
    Smith, R.: The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver. IEEE_J_C 100(12), 1104–1113 (1980)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ströbel, M., Weinhardt, C.: The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations. Group Decis. Negot. 12, 143–164 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tohmé, F., Bodanza, G., Simari, G.: Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.: Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Landes
    • 1
  • Ricardo Buettner
    • 1
  1. 1.Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource ManagementFOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, University of Applied SciencesMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations