‘Believable’ Agents Build Relationships on the Web

  • John Debenham
  • Simeon Simoff
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 151)


In this paper we present the Believable Negotiator — the formalism behind a Web business negotiation technology that treats relationships as a commodity. It supports relationship building, maintaining, evolving, and passing to other agents, and utilises such relationships in agent interaction. The Believable Negotiator also takes in account the “relationship gossip” — the information, supplied by its information providing agents, about the position of respective agents in their networks of relationships beyond the trading space. It is embodied in a 3D web space, that is translated to different virtual worlds platforms, enabling the creation of an integrated 3D trading space, geared for Web 3.0.


Multiagent System Information Gain World Model Believable Negotiator Relationship Target 
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.
    Alag, S.: Collective Intelligence in Action. Manning Publications Co. (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arcos, J.L., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez, J.A., Sierra, C.: Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berscheid, E., Reis, H.: Attraction and close relationships. In: The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 193–281. McGraw-Hill, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boella, G., der Torre, L.V., Verhagen, H.: Introduction to normative multiagent systems. Computational Mathematics and Organisational Theory 12, 71–79 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogdanovych, A.: Virtual Institutions. PhD thesis, Faculty of IT, University of Technology, Sydney (November 2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Debenham, J., Simoff, S.: Believable electronic trading environments on the web. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence WI 2009, Milan, Italy, September 15-18, pp. 631–638. IEEE/WIC/ACM, IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gloor, P.A., Krauss, J., Nann, S., Fischbach, K., Schoder, D.: Web science 2.0: Identifying trends through semantic social network analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, pp. 215–222. IEEE Computer Society (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kalfoglou, Y., Schorlemmer, W.M.: IF-Map: An Ontology-Mapping Method Based on Information-Flow Theory. In: Spaccapietra, S., March, S., Aberer, K. (eds.) Journal on Data Semantics I. LNCS, vol. 2800, pp. 98–127. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    King, I., Li, J., Chan, K.T.: A brief survey of computational approaches in social computing. In: Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, June 14-19, pp. 1625–1632. IEEE, IEEE Press (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.: Trust and honour in information-based agency. In: Stone, P., Weiss, G. (eds.) Proceedings Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems AAMAS 2006, Hakodate, Japan, pp. 1225–1232. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.: Information-based agency. In: Proceedings of Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2007, Hyderabad, India, pp. 1513–1518 (January 2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sierra, C., Debenham, J.: The LOGIC Negotiation Model. In: Proceedings Sixth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems AAMAS 2007, Honolulu, Hawai’i, pp. 1026–1033 (May 2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sierra, C., Jennings, N., 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. 177–192. Springer, London (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sondak, H., Neale, M.A., Pinkley, R.: The negotiated allocations of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes (3), 249–260 (December 1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valley, K.L., Neale, M.A., Mannix, E.A.: Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: The effects of relationships on the process and outcome of negotiations. In: Bies, R., Lewicki, R., Sheppard, B. (eds.) Research in Negotiation in Organizations, vol. 5, pp. 65–94. JAI Press (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Quantum Computation & Intelligent SystemsUniversity of Technology SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Computing & MathematicsUniversity of Western SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations