[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Nova: Value-based Negotiation of Norms

Published: 01 August 2021 Publication History

Abstract

Specifying a normative multiagent system (nMAS) is challenging, because different agents often have conflicting requirements. Whereas existing approaches can resolve clear-cut conflicts, tradeoffs might occur in practice among alternative nMAS specifications with no apparent resolution. To produce an nMAS specification that is acceptable to each agent, we model the specification process as a negotiation over a set of norms. We propose an agent-based negotiation framework, where agents’ requirements are represented as values (e.g., patient safety, privacy, and national security), and an agent revises the nMAS specification to promote its values by executing a set of norm revision rules that incorporate ontology-based reasoning. To demonstrate that our framework supports creating a transparent and accountable nMAS specification, we conduct an experiment with human participants who negotiate against our agent. Our findings show that our negotiation agent reaches better agreements (with small p-value and large effect size) faster than a baseline strategy. Moreover, participants perceive that our agent enables more collaborative and transparent negotiations than the baseline (with small p-value and large effect size in particular settings) toward reaching an agreement.

References

[1]
AIHLEG. 2019. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. (2019). High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60419.
[2]
Nirav Ajmeri, Jiaming Jiang, Rada Y. Chirkova, Jon Doyle, and Munindar P. Singh. 2016. Coco: Runtime reasoning about conflicting commitments. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16). 17–23. https://www.ijcai.org/Abstract/16/010.
[3]
Huib Aldewereld, Virginia Dignum, and Wamberto W. Vasconcelos. 2016. Group norms for multi-agent organisations. ACM Trans. Autonom. Adapt. Syst. 11, 2 (2016), 1–31.
[4]
Natasha Alechina, Mehdi Dastani, and Brian Logan. 2013. Reasoning about normative update. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’13). 20–26.
[5]
Reyhan Aydoğan, David Festen, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2017. Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation. In Modern Approaches to Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, Katsuhide Fujita, Quan Bai, Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Fenghui Ren, Reyhan Aydoğan, and Rafik Hadfi (Eds.). Number 674 in Studies in Computational Intelligence. Springer, Cham, 153–167.
[6]
Reyhan Aydoğan, Tim Baarslag, Koen V. Hindriks, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Pınar Yolum. 2015. Heuristics for using CP-nets in utility-based negotiation without knowing utilities. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 45, 2 (2015), 357–388.
[7]
Reyhan Aydoğan, Nuri Taşdemir, and Pınar Yolum. 2010. Reasoning and negotiating with complex preferences using CP-nets. In Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce and Trading Agent Design and Analysis. Springer, Berlin, 15–28.
[8]
Reyhan Aydoğan and Pınar Yolum. 2007. Learning consumer preferences using semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 1293–1300.
[9]
Reyhan Aydoğan and Pınar Yolum. 2012. Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: An approach based on concept learning. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 24, 1 (2012), 104–140.
[10]
Tim Baarslag, Enrico H. Gerding, Reyhan Aydoğan, and M. C. Schraefel. 2015. Optimal negotiation decision functions in time-sensitive domains. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT’15), Vol. 2. IEEE, 190–197.
[11]
Tim Baarslag, Mark J. C. Hendrikx, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. 2016. Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: A comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques. Auton. Agent Multi Agent Syst. 30, 5 (2016), 849–898.
[12]
Tim Baarslag and Michael Kaisers. 2017. The value of information in automated negotiation: A decision model for eliciting user preferences. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 391–400.
[13]
Tim Baarslag, Michael Kaisers, Enrico H. Gerding, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Jonathan Gratch. 2017. When will negotiation agents be able to represent us? The challenges and opportunities for autonomous negotiators. In Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’17). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 4684–4690.
[14]
Mathieu Beirlaen and Christian Straßer. 2014. Non-monotonic reasoning with normative conflicts in multi-agent deontic logic. J. Logic Comput. 24, 6 (2014), 1179–1207.
[15]
Christoph Benzmüller, Xavier Parent, and Leendert van der Torre. 2018. A deontic logic reasoning infrastructure. In Proceedings of the Conference on Computability in Europe. Springer, 60–69.
[16]
Guido Boella, Patrice Caire, and Leendert van der Torre. 2009. Norm negotiation in online multi-player games. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 18, 2 (2009), 137–156.
[17]
Craig Boutilier, Ronen I. Brafman, Carmel Domshlak, Holger H. Hoos, and David Poole. 2004. CP-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 21 (2004), 135–191.
[18]
Peter J. Carnevale and Tahira M. Probst. 1998. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 5 (1998), 1300.
[19]
Federico Chesani, Paola Mello, Marco Montali, and Paolo Torroni. 2013. Representing and monitoring social commitments using the event calculus. Autonom. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 27, 1 (Jul. 2013), 85–130.
[20]
Amit K. Chopra, Fabiano Dalpiaz, F. Başak Aydemir, Paolo Giorgini, John Mylopoulos, and Munindar P. Singh. 2014. Protos: Foundations for engineering innovative sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE Computer Society, 53–62.
[21]
Natalia Criado, Estefania Argente, Pablo Noriega, and Vicente Botti. 2013. MaNEA: A distributed architecture for enforcing norms in open MAS. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 26, 1 (Jan. 2013), 76–95.
[22]
Dave de Jonge, Tim Baarslag, Reyhan Aydoğan, Catholijn M. Jonker, Katsuhide Fujita, and Takayuki Ito. 2018. The challenge of negotiation in the game of diplomacy. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Agreement Technologies. Springer International Publishing, 100–114.
[23]
Pieter Dijkstra, Henry Prakken, and Kees de Vey Mestdagh. 2007. An implementation of norm-based agent negotiation. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, 167–175.
[24]
Sohan Dsouza, Ya’akov K. Gal, Philippe Pasquier, Sherief Abdallah, and Iyad Rahwan. 2013. Reasoning about goal revelation in human negotiation. IEEE Intell. Syst. 28, 2 (2013), 74–80.
[25]
Phan Minh Dung. 1995. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 2 (1995), 321–357.
[26]
Mohamed El-Menshawy, Jamal Bentahar, Warda El Kholy, Pinar Yolum, and Rachida Dssouli. 2015. Computational logics and verification techniques of multi-agent commitments: Survey. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 30, 5 (Nov. 2015), 564–606.
[27]
Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nick R. Jennings. 1998. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot. Auton. Syst. 24, 3 (1998), 159–182.
[28]
Shaheen Fatima, Sarit Kraus, and Michael Wooldridge. 2014. Principles of Automated Negotiation (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
[29]
Roger Fisher, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. 1983. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in (3rd ed.). Penguin Books, New York.
[30]
Georgios K. Giannikis and Aspassia Daskalopulu. 2011. Normative conflicts in electronic contracts. Electr. Commerce Res. Appl. 10, 2 (2011), 247–267.
[31]
Guido Governatori. 2013. Business process compliance: An abstract normative framework. Inf. Technol. 55, 6 (2013), 231–238.
[32]
Robert J. Grissom and John J. Kim. 2012. Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and Multivariate Applications. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.
[33]
Nicola Guarino. 1998. Formal Ontology in Information Systems (1st ed.). IOS Press, Amsterdam.
[34]
Akın Günay and Pınar Yolum. 2013. Constraint satisfaction as a tool for modeling and checking feasibility of multiagent commitments. Appl. Intell. 39, 3 (Oct. 2013), 489–509.
[35]
Michael Hack. 2016. The implications of Apple’s battle with the FBI. Netw. Secur. 2016, 7 (2016), 8–10.
[36]
HHS. 2014. Bulletin: HIPAA Privacy in Emergency Situations. (2014). United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/.
[37]
Koen V. Hindriks and Dmytro Tykhonov. 2008. Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 331–338.
[38]
Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. 1919. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
[39]
Myles Hollander and Douglas A. Wolfe. 1999. Nonparametric Statistical Methods. Wiley, New York. 98003314
[40]
John F. Horty. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
[41]
Catholijn M. Jonker, Reyhan Aydoğan, Tim Baarslag, Katsuhide Fujita, Takayuki Ito, and Koen V. Hindriks. 2017. Automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC). In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17). AAAI Press, 5070–5072.
[42]
Özgür Kafalı, Nirav Ajmeri, and Munindar P. Singh. 2016. Revani: Revising and verifying normative specifications for privacy. IEEE Intell. Syst. 31, 5 (Sep. 2016), 8–15.
[43]
Özgür Kafalı, Nirav Ajmeri, and Munindar P. Singh. 2017. Kont: Computing tradeoffs in normative multiagent systems. In Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’17). AAAI, 3006–3012.
[44]
Özgür Kafalı, Nirav Ajmeri, and Munindar P. Singh. 2020. Desen: Specification of sociotechnical systems via patterns of regulation and control. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 29, 1 (Feb. 2020), 7:1–7:50.
[45]
Özgür Kafalı and Paolo Torroni. 2012. Exception diagnosis in multiagent contract executions. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 64, 1 (Jan. 2012), 73–107.
[46]
Özgür Kafalı and Pınar Yolum. 2016. Pisagor: A proactive software agent for monitoring interactions. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 47, 1 (Apr. 2016), 215–239.
[47]
Thomas C. King, Tingting Li, Marina De Vos, Virginia Dignum, Catholijn M. Jonker, Julian Padget, and B. Birna van Riemsdijk. 2015. A framework for institutions governing institutions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS’15). IFAAMAS, 473–481.
[48]
Martin J. Kollingbaum, Timothy J. Norman, Alun Preece, and Derek Sleeman. 2006. Norm refinement: Informing the re-negotiation of contracts. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Coordination, Organization, Institutions and Norms in Agent Systems. IFAAMAS, 46–51.
[49]
Srdjan Marinovic, Naranker Dulay, and Morris Sloman. 2014. Rumpole: An introspective break-glass access control language. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. Secur. 17, 1 (Aug. 2014), 2:1–2:31.
[50]
Ivan Marsá-Maestre, Miguel A. López-Carmona, Mark Klein, Takayuki Ito, and Katsuhide Fujita. 2014. Addressing utility space complexity in negotiations involving highly uncorrelated, constraint-based utility spaces. Comput. Intell. 30, 1 (2014), 1–29.
[51]
Sanjay Modgil and Michael Luck. 2008. Argumentation based resolution of conflicts between desires and normative goals. In International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems. Springer, 19–36.
[52]
Andreasa Morris-Martin, Marina De Vos, and Julian Padget. 2019. Norm emergence in multiagent systems: A viewpoint paper. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 33, 6 (2019), 706–749.
[53]
Asma Moubaiddin and Nadim Obeid. 2013. On formalizing social commitments in dialogue and argumentation models using temporal defeasible logic. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 37, 2 (2013), 417–452.
[54]
Luis G. Nardin, Tina Balke-Visser, Nirav Ajmeri, Anup K. Kalia, Jaime S. Sichman, and Munindar P. Singh. 2016. Classifying sanctions and designing a conceptual sanctioning process model for socio-technical systems. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 31, 2 (Mar. 2016), 142–166.
[55]
Gauthier Picard, Camille Persson, Olivier Boissier, and Fano Ramparany. 2015. Multi-agent self-organization and reorganization to adapt M2M infrastructures. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems. IEEE, 91–100.
[56]
Iyad Rahwan, Liz Sonenberg, and Frank Dignum. 2003. Towards interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. IFAAMAS, 773–780.
[57]
Régis Riveret, Yang Gao, Guido Governatori, Antonino Rotolo, Jeremy Pitt, and Giovanni Sartor. 2019. A probabilistic argumentation framework for reinforcement learning agents. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 33, 1 (2019), 216–274.
[58]
Ariel Rubinstein. 1992. The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under “almost common knowledge.” In Knowledge, Belief, and Strategic Interaction, Cristina Bicchieri and Maria Luisa Dalla Chiara (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 317–326.
[59]
Jéssica S. Santos, Jean O. Zahn, Eduardo A. Silvestre, Viviane T. Silva, and Wamberto W. Vasconcelos. 2017. Detection and resolution of normative conflicts in multi-agent systems: A literature survey. Auton. Agents Multi-agent Syst. 31, 6 (2017), 1236–1282.
[60]
Marek Sergot. 2013. Normative positions. In Handbook of Deontic Logic and Normative Systems, Dov Gabbay, John Horty, Ron van der Meyden, Xavier Parent, and Leendvert van der Torre (Eds.). College Publications, London, 353–406.
[61]
Munindar P. Singh. 2013. Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 5, 1 (Dec. 2013), 21:1–21:23.
[62]
Okan Tunalı, Reyhan Aydoğan, and Victor Sanchez-Anguix. 2017. Rethinking frequency opponent modeling in automated negotiation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems. Springer International Publishing, 263–279.
[63]
Rustam Vahidov, Gregory E. Kersten, and Bo Yu. 2017. Human-agent negotiations: the impact agents’ concession schedule and task complexity on agreements. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’17). HISCSS Press, 412–420.
[64]
Leendert van der Torre and Serena Villata. 2014. An ASPIC-based legal argumentation framework for deontic reasoning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computational Models of Argument. IOS Press, 266–421.
[65]
W. Fred Van Raaij and Theo M. M. Verhallen. 1994. Domain-specific market segmentation. Eur. J. Market. 28, 10 (1994), 49–66.
[66]
Wamberto W. Vasconcelos, Martin J. Kollingbaum, and Timothy J. Norman. 2009. Normative conflict resolution in multi-agent systems. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 19, 2 (Oct. 2009), 124–152.
[67]
Georg Henrik Von Wright. 1963. Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Humanities Press, New York.
[68]
Georg Henrik Von Wright. 1999. Deontic Logic: A personal view. Ratio Juris 12, 1 (Mar. 1999), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9337.00106
[69]
Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nick R. Jennings. 2013. Iamhaggler2011: A gaussian process regression based negotiation agent. In Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions. Springer, Berlin, 209–212.
[70]
Qi Zhang, Edmund H. Durfee, Satinder P. Singh, Anna Chen, and Stefan J. Witwicki. 2016. Commitment semantics for sequential decision making under reward uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’16). International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 3315–3323.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A survey of automated negotiation: Human factor, learning, and applicationComputer Science Review10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.10068354(100683)Online publication date: Nov-2024
  • (2024)Optimising multi-value alignment: a multi-objective evolutionary strategy for normative multi-agent systemsNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-024-10625-0Online publication date: 21-Dec-2024
  • (2023)Wasabi: A Conceptual Model for Trustworthy Artificial IntelligenceComputer10.1109/MC.2022.321202256:2(20-28)Online publication date: Mar-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology
ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology  Volume 12, Issue 4
August 2021
368 pages
ISSN:2157-6904
EISSN:2157-6912
DOI:10.1145/3468075
  • Editor:
  • Huan Liu
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 August 2021
Accepted: 01 May 2021
Revised: 01 February 2021
Received: 01 June 2020
Published in TIST Volume 12, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Sociotechnical systems
  2. conflicting requirements
  3. human–agent negotiation

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Refereed

Funding Sources

  • US National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)222
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44
Reflects downloads up to 26 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)A survey of automated negotiation: Human factor, learning, and applicationComputer Science Review10.1016/j.cosrev.2024.10068354(100683)Online publication date: Nov-2024
  • (2024)Optimising multi-value alignment: a multi-objective evolutionary strategy for normative multi-agent systemsNeural Computing and Applications10.1007/s00521-024-10625-0Online publication date: 21-Dec-2024
  • (2023)Wasabi: A Conceptual Model for Trustworthy Artificial IntelligenceComputer10.1109/MC.2022.321202256:2(20-28)Online publication date: Mar-2023
  • (2023)Encoding Ethics to Compute Value-Aligned NormsMinds and Machines10.1007/s11023-023-09649-733:4(761-790)Online publication date: 22-Nov-2023
  • (2023)A normative approach for resilient multiagent systemsAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-023-09627-437:2Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Run-Time Norms Synthesis in Dynamic Environments with Changing ObjectivesArtificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science10.1007/978-3-031-26438-2_36(462-474)Online publication date: 23-Feb-2023

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

HTML Format

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media