Formal Handling of Threats and Rewards in a Negotiation Dialogue

  • Leila Amgoud
  • Henri Prade
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


Argumentation plays a key role in finding a compromise during a negotiation dialogue. It may lead an agent to change its goals/ preferences and force it to respond in a particular way. Two types of arguments are mainly used for that purpose: threats and rewards. For example, if an agent receives a threat, this agent may accept the offer even if it is not fully “acceptable” for it (because otherwise really important goals would be threatened).

The contribution of this paper is twofold. On the one hand, a logical setting that handles these two types of arguments is provided. More precisely, logical definitions of threats and rewards are proposed together with their weighting systems. These definitions take into account that negotiation dialogues involve not only agents’ beliefs (of various strengths), but also their goals (having maybe different priorities), as well as the beliefs about the goals of other agents.

On the other hand, a “simple” protocol for handling such arguments in a negotiation dialogue is given. This protocol shows when such arguments can be presented, how they are handled, and how they lead agents to change their goals and behaviors.


Argumentation Negotiation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: Inferring from inconsistency in preference-based argumentation frameworks. Int. J. of Automated Reasoning 29, 125–169 (2002)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Maudet, N., Parsons, S.: Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston, MA, pp. 31–38 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Reaching agreement through argumentation: A possibilistic approach. In: 9th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Whistler, Canada, pp. 194–201 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kakas, A., Moraitis, P.: Argumentative deliberation for autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the ECAI 2002 Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2002), pp. 65–74 (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    MacKenzie, J.: Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of philosophical logic 8, 117–133 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: Towards interest-based negotiation. In: AAMAS 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N., Sierra, C.: Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: a rhetorical approach. In: IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Arguments (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Amgoud
    • 1
  • Henri Prade
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (I.R.I.T.)–C.N.R.S.Université Paul SabatierToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations