The Argumentative Mediator

  • Carles SierraEmail author
  • Ramon Lopez de Mantaras
  • Simeon Simoff
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10207)


In this paper we introduce a negotiation mediator in a multiagent context. When negotiation fails, a mediator can interact with the parties, find out about their goals, ontologies, and arguments for and against negotiation outcome, and suggest solutions based on previous experience. An algorithmic schema to be instantiated with particular argumentation, semantic alignment and case-base reasoning techniques is presented. The proposal is neutral with respect to which particular technique is selected. An example illustrates the approach that is framed in the existing body of literature on argumentation and mediation.



This research has been supported by Generalitat de Catalunya project 2014 SGR 118.


  1. 1.
    Abrahams, B., Bellucci, E., Zeleznikow, J.: Incorporating fairness into development of an integrated multi-agent online dispute resolution environment. Group Decis. Negot. 21, 3–28 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baydin, A.G., López de Mántaras, R., Simoff, S., Sierra, C.: CBR with commonsense reasoning and structure mapping: an application to mediation. In: Ram, A., Wiratunga, N. (eds.) ICCBR 2011. LNCS, vol. 6880, pp. 378–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-23291-6_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellucci, E., Zeleznikow, J.: Developing negotiation decision support systems that support mediators: case study of the Family_Winner system. Artif. Intell. Law 13(2), 233–271 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 619–641 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Black, E., Hunter, A., Pan, J.Z.: An argument-based approach to using multiple ontologies. In: Godo, L., Pugliese, A. (eds.) SUM 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5785, pp. 68–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04388-8_7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bratko, I., Žabkar, J., Možina, M.: Argument-based machine learning. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer US, New York (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_23 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Budán, M.C.D., Gómez Lucero, M., Chesñevar, C., Simari, G.R.: Modeling time and valuation in structured argumentation frameworks. Inf. Sci. 290, 22–44 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bush, R.A.B., Joseph, F.: The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: On the acceptability of arguments in bipolar argumentation frameworks. In: Godo, L. (ed.) ECSQARU 2005. LNCS, vol. 3571, pp. 378–389. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). doi: 10.1007/11518655_33 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Bipolar abstract argumentation systems. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 65–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C.: Coalitions of arguments: a tool for handling bipolar argumentation frameworks. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 25(1), 83–109 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chalamish, M., Kraus, S.: AutoMed - an automated mediator for bilateral negotiations under time constraints. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, AAMAS 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. IFAAMAS (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chalamish, M., Kraus, S.: AutoMed: an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 24, 536–564 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171, 730–753 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Craik, K.J.W.: The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1943)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Debenham, J.: Bargaining with information. In: Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., Tambe, M. (eds.) Proceedings Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems AAMAS-2004, pp. 664–671. ACM Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Debenham, J.K., Simoff, S.: Negotiating intelligently. In: Bramer, M., Coenen, F., Tuson, A. (eds.) Proceedings 26th International Conference on Innovative Techniques and Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, UK, pp. 159–172 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: A bipolar possibilistic representation of knowledge and preferences and its applications. In: Bloch, I., Petrosino, A., Tettamanzi, A.G.B. (eds.) WILF 2005. LNCS, vol. 3849, pp. 1–10. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi: 10.1007/11676935_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–358 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ermolayev, V., Davidovsky, M.: Agent-based ontology alignment: basics, applications, theoretical foundations, and demonstration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics WIMS 2012. ACM Press, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentner, D., Stevens, A.L. (eds.): Mental Models. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jarett, B.: The future of mediation: a sociaological perspective. J. Disput. Resol. 2009(1), 49–75 (2010)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keeney, R.L., Thinking, V.-F.: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kolodner, J.: Case-Based Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Mateo (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kolodner, J.L., Simpson, R.L.: The MEDIATOR: Analysis of an early case-based problem solver. Cogn. Sci. 13(4), 507–549 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laera, L., Tamma, V., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., Euzenat, J.: Agent-based argumentation for ontology alignments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, CMNA 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Letia, I.A., Groza, A.: Structured argumentation in a mediator for online dispute resolution. In: Baldoni, M., Son, T.C., Riemsdijk, M.B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) DALT 2007. LNCS, vol. 4897, pp. 193–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-77564-5_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lin, R., Gev, Y., Kraus, S.: Bridging the gap: face-to-face negotiations with automated mediator. IEEE Intell. Syst. 26(6), 40–47 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin, R., Gev, Y., Kraus, S.: Facilitating better negotiation solutions using AniMed. In: The Fourth International Workshop on Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN 2011), Taipei, Taiwan, May 2011Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mnookin, R.H., Peppet, S.R., Tulumello, A.S., Winning, B.: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rahwan, I.: Interest-based negotiation in multi-agent systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (2004)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: A formal analysis of interest-based negotiation. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 55(3–4), 253–276 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds.): Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schei, V., Rognes, J.K.: Knowing me, knowing you: own orientation and information about the opponent’s orientation in negotiation. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 14(1), 43–60 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.K.: The logic negotiation model. In: Proceedings Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS 2007), pp. 1026–1033 (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.: Information-based agency. In: Proceedings of Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI 2007, pp. 1513–1518, Hyderabad, India (2007)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Simoff, S., Debenham, J.: Curious negotiator. In: Klusch, M., Ossowski, S., Shehory, O. (eds.) CIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2446, pp. 104–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). doi: 10.1007/3-540-45741-0_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Simoff, S., Sierra, C., López de Màntaras, R.: Mediation = information revelation + analogical reasoning. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Broersen, J. (eds.) KRAMAS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5605, pp. 145–160. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-05301-6_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sycara, K.P.: Problem restructuring in negotiation. Manag. Sci. 37(10), 1248–1268 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tedesco, P.A.: MArCo: building an artificial conflict mediator to support group planning interactions. Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ. 13, 117–155 (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tempich, C., Studer, R., Simperl, E., Luczak, M., SofiaPinto, H.: Argumentation-based ontology engineering. IEEE Inetell. Syst. 22(6), 52–59 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thompson, L., Neale, M., Sinaceur, M.: The evolution of cognition and biases in negotiation research: an examination of cognition, social perception, motivation and emotion. In: Gelfand, M.J., Brett, J.M. (eds.) The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture, pp. 7–44. Standford University Press, Palo Alto (2004)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Boven, L., Thompson, L.: A look into the mind of the negotiator: mental models in negotiation. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 6(4), 387–404 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Visser, W., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Interest-based preference reasoning. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, ICAART 2011, pp. 79–88 (2011)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilkenfeld, J., Kraus, S., Santmire, T.E., Frain, C.K.: The role of mediation in conflict management: conditions for successful resolution. In: Multiple paths to knowledge in international relations. Lexington Books (2004)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wing, J.M.: Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49(3), 33–35 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carles Sierra
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ramon Lopez de Mantaras
    • 1
  • Simeon Simoff
    • 2
  1. 1.Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Western Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations