A Protocol for Arguing About Rejections in Negotiation

  • Jelle van Veenen
  • Henry Prakken
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)


One form of argument-based negotiation is when agents argue about why an offer was rejected. If an agent can state a reason for a rejection of an offer, the negotiation process may become more efficient since the other agent can take this reason into account when making new offers. Also, if a reason for rejection can be disputed, the negotiation process may be of higher quality since flawed reasons may be revised as a result. This paper presents a formal protocol for negotiation in which reasons can be asked and given for rejections and in which agents can try to persuade each other that a reason is or is not acceptable. The protocol is modelled as a persuasion dialogue game embedded in a negotiation protocol. It has a social semantics since the protocol does not refer to the internal state of negotiating agents.


Argumentation Scheme Initial Move Communication Language Dialogue System Negotiation Protocol 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18, 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singh, M.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31, 40–47 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 338–342 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: Languages for negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 393–400 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15 (to appear, 2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Prakken, H.: On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dung, P.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming, and n–person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable argument. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pollock, J.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dung, P.: Logic programming as dialog game. Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mackenzie, J.: Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133 (1979)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 315–343 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 125–165 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelle van Veenen
    • 1
  • Henry Prakken
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of LawTilburg UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Law & ICT, Faculty of LawUniversity of GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations