Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Process of Reaching Agreement in Meaning Negotiation

  • Chapter
Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence VII

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((TCCI,volume 7270))

Abstract

The process of reaching an agreement about the meaning of a set of terms is known as Meaning Negotiation. The problem of representing this process contains some sub-problems: to represent the knowledge of the agents about the meaning of the negotiating set of terms, to model the behaviour of the agents involved and to define the agreement and disagreement conditions.

Although a large attention from many diverse communities has been driven to this theme in the recent literature of Artificial Intelligence and Knowledge Representation, the results of these investigations depend upon the number of the involved agents. The mechanism of reaching an agreement has been largely studied in the Game Theory community, but only for quantitative objects to be negotiated.

In this paper we approach the problem of defining a general framework that can be used to formalise the steps that brings two agents in one case or a group of more than two agents in the other one to reach an agreement about the meaning of a set of terms. In particular, once we have defined a logical framework to represent the situation of two agents that negotiate we define an algorithm automating the Meaning Negotiation process and study its computational properties. We then extend the algorithm to a framework in which negotiating agents are more than two.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.J.M., McBurney, P.: Arguing about cases as practical reasoning. In: ICAIL 2005: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 35–44 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K., Chorley, A.: Persuasion and value in legal argument. J. Logic and Computation 15(6), 1075–1097 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bench-Capon, T.J.M.: Argument in artificial intelligence and law. Artif. Intell. Law 5(4), 249–261 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benferhat, S., Kaci, S., Le Berre, D., Williams, M.-A.: Weakening conflicting information for iterated revision and knowledge integration. Artif. Intell. 153(1-2), 339–371 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Booth, R.: Social contraction and belief negotiation. Inf. Fusion 7(1), 19–34 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burato, E., Cristani, M.: Contract clause negotiation by game theory. In: ICAIL, pp. 71–80. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Burato, E., Cristani, M.: Learning as Meaning Negotiation: A Model Based on English Auction. In: Håkansson, A., Nguyen, N.T., Hartung, R.L., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES-AMSTA 2009. LNCS, vol. 5559, pp. 60–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Chang, C.-L., Lee, R.C.-T.: Symbolic Logic and Mechanical Theorem Proving. Academic Press (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Daskalopulu, A., Sergot, M.: The representation of legal contracts. AI and Society 11(1/2), 6–17 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Douglas, W. (ed.): Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Routledge (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Douglas, W. (ed.): Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law. Cambridge University Press (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Douglas, W., Christopher, R., Fabrizio, M. (eds.): Argumentation Schemes. Springer (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Dung, P.M., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: Computing ideal sceptical argumentation. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 642–674 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Farley, A.M., Freeman, K.: Burden of proof in legal argumentation. In: ICAIL 1995: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 156–164. ACM, New York (1995)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Fermé, E., Rott, H.: Revision by comparison. Artif. Intell. 157(1-2), 5–47 (2004)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Gordon, T.F.: The pleadings game: formalizing procedural justice. In: ICAIL 1993: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 10–19. ACM, New York (1993)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Gordon, T.F., Prakken, H., Walton, D.: The carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 875–896 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Gordon, T.F., Walton, D.: Legal reasoning with argumentation schemes. In: ICAIL 2009: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 137–146. ACM, New York (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Grégoire, E.: An unbiased approach to iterated fusion by weakening. Inf. Fusion 7(1), 35–40 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grégoire, E., Konieczny, S.: Logic-based approaches to information fusion. Inf. Fusion 7(1), 4–18 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hunter, A., Summerton, R.: A knowledge-based approach to merging information. Knowledge-Based Systems 19(8), 647–674 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Iván, C.C., Maguitman, A.G., Loui, R.P.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32(4), 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kambe, S.: Bargaining with imperfect commitment. Games and Economic Behavior 28(2), 217–237 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Kambe, S.: Bargaining with imperfect commitment. Games and Economic Behavior 28(2), 217–237 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. McBurney, P., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T.: Justifying practical reasoning. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), pp. 87–90 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Konieczny, S.: On the difference between merging knowledge bases and combining them. In: KR, pp. 135–144 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kowalski, R.A., Toni, F.: Abstract argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 4, 275–296 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104(1-2), 1–69 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Liberatore, P., Schaerf, M.: Arbitration (or how to merge knowledge bases). IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng. 10(1), 76–90 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin, J.: Integration of weighted knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence 83(2), 363–378 (1996)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I.: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Context and Recent Developments. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Nash, J.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18(2), 155–162 (1950)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Preece, A.: Subjective logic and arguing with evidence. Artificial Intelligence 171(10-15), 838–854 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J. Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Pollock, J.L.: Justification and defeat. Artificial Intelligence 67(2), 377–407 (1994)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Pollock, J.L.: Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence 133(1-2), 233–282 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Argumentation schemes and generalisations in reasoning about evidence. In: ICAIL 2003: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 32–41. ACM Press, New York (2003)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Dialogues about the burden of proof. In: ICAIL 2005: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 115–124. ACM, New York (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Rubinelli, S.: Let me tell you why! when argumentation in doctor-patient interaction makes a difference. Argumentation 20(3), 353–375 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–110 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  42. Schroeder, M., Schweimeier, R.: Arguments and misunderstandings: Fuzzy unification for negotiating agents. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 70(5), 1–19 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Thakur, S.S., Governatori, G., Padmanabhan, V., Eriksson Lundström, J.: Dialogue Games in Defeasible Logic. In: Orgun, M.A., Thornton, J. (eds.) AI 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4830, pp. 497–506. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambrigde University Press (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  45. van Eemeren, F.H. (ed.): Advances in pragma-dialectics. SicSat / Newport News, Vale Press, Amsterdam, VA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  46. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (eds.): Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Floris Publications, Dordrecht (1984)

    Google Scholar 

  47. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (eds.): Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  48. van Eemerena, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (eds.): A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walton, D.: Is there a burden of questioning? Artif. Intell. Law 11(1), 1–43 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Walton, D.: Justification of argument schemes. The Australasian Journal of Logic 3, 1–13 (2005)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wurman, P., Wellman, M., Walsh, W.: A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior 35(1-2), 304–338 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhang, D., Foo, N., Meyer, T., Kwok, R.: Negotiation as mutual belief revision. In: AAAI 2004: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 317–322. AAAI Press / The MIT Press (2004)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Verona, Cà Vignal 2, Strada Le Grazie 15, I-37134, Verona, Italy

    Elisa Burato & Matteo Cristani

Authors
  1. Elisa Burato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matteo Cristani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. InstituteDepartment of Informatics, Wroclaw University of Technology, Wyb. Wyspianskiego 27, 50-370, Wroclaw, Poland

    Ngoc Thanh Nguyen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Burato, E., Cristani, M. (2012). The Process of Reaching Agreement in Meaning Negotiation. In: Nguyen, N.T. (eds) Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence VII. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7270. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32066-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32066-8_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32065-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32066-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation