Argument-Based Negotiation in a Social Context

  • Nishan C. Karunatillake
  • Nicholas R. Jennings
  • Iyad Rahwan
  • Timothy J. Norman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


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.


Argumentation-based Negotiation Conflict Resolution 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18, 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    Panzarasa, P., Jennings, N.R., Norman, T.J.: Social mental shaping: Modelling the impact of sociality on the mental states of autonomous agents. Computational Intelligence 17, 738–782 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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
  7. 7.
    Dignum, V., Kinny, D., Sonenberg, L.: Motivational attitudes of agents: On desires, obligations and norms. In: Dunin-Keplicz, B., Nawarecki, E. (eds.) CEEMAS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2296, pp. 61–70. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torre van der, L., Tan, Y.H.: Contrary-to-duty reasoning with preference-based dyadic obligations. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 27, 49–78 (1999)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ross, A.: Imperatives and logic. Theoria 7, 53–71 (1941)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., McBurney, P.: A dialogue game protocol for multi-agent argument over proposals for action. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 149–161. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walton, D.N.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    MacKenzie, J.: Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of philosophical logic 8, 117–133 (1979)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McBurney, P., van Eijk, R., Parsons, S., Amgoud, L.: A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 7, 235–273 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., Rahwan, I., Norman, T.J.: Arguing and negotiating in the presence of social influences. In: Pěchouček, M., Petta, P., Varga, L.Z. (eds.) CEEMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3690, pp. 223–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using similarity criteria to make trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142, 205–237 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 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. 18.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State Univ. of NY (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reed, C.A., Walton, D.N.: Towards a formal and implemented model of argumentation schemes in agent communication. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 19–30. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., 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. 167–182. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nishan C. Karunatillake
    • 1
  • Nicholas R. Jennings
    • 1
  • Iyad Rahwan
    • 2
    • 3
  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.Institute of InformaticsThe British University in DubaiDubai, UAE
  3. 3.(Fellow) School of InformaticsUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  4. 4.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations