Argument-Based Negotiation in a Social Context
Argumentation-based negotiation (ABN) provides agents with an effective means to resolve conflicts within a multi-agent society. However, to engage in such argumentative encounters the agents require the ability to generate arguments, which, in turn, demands four fundamental capabilities: a schema to reason in a social context, a mechanism to identify a suitable set of arguments, a language and a protocol to exchange these arguments, and a decision making functionality to generate such dialogues. This paper focuses on the first two issues and formulates models to capture them. Specifically, we propose a coherent schema, based on social commitments, to capture social influences emanating from the roles and relationships of a multi-agent society. After explaining how agents can use this schema to reason within a society, we then use it to identify two major ways of exploiting social influence within ABN to resolve conflicts. The first of these allows agents to argue about the validity of each other’s social reasoning, whereas the second enables agents to exploit social influences by incorporating them as parameters within their negotiation. For each of these, we use our schema to systematically capture a comprehensive set of social arguments that can be used within a multi-agent society.
KeywordsArgumentation-based Negotiation Conflict Resolution
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Cavedon, L., Sonenberg, L.: On social commitment, roles and preferred goals. In: Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), pp. 80–86 (1998)Google Scholar
- 5.Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E.A., Cavedon, L.: Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In: Proc. of the Fourth Int. Conf. on Multi-agent Systems, Boston, USA, pp. 111–118 (2000)Google Scholar
- 6.Castelfranchi, C.: Commitments: From individual intentions to groups and organizations. In: Proc. of the First Int. Conf. on Multi-agent Systems (ICMAS 1995), San Francisco, CA, pp. 41–48 (1995)Google Scholar
- 9.Ross, A.: Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7, 53–71 (1941)Google Scholar
- 11.Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
- 12.Amgoud, L., Parson, S., Maudet, N.: Argument, dialogue and negotiation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) Proc. of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), Berlin, pp. 338–342 (2000)Google Scholar
- 17.Reed, C.A.: Dialogue frames in agent communication. In: Proc. of the Third Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 246–253 (1998)Google Scholar
- 18.Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State Univ. of NY (1995)Google Scholar
- 23.van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar