More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Argumentation-based negotiation

Authors:

Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,

Nicholas R. Jennings,

Peter Mcburney,

Liz SonenbergAuthors Info & Claims

The Knowledge Engineering Review, Volume 18, Issue 4

Pages 343 - 375

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269888904000098

Published: 01 December 2003 Publication History

Abstract

Negotiation is essential in settings where autonomous agents have conflicting interests and a desire to cooperate. For this reason, mechanisms in which agents exchange potential agreements according to various rules of interaction have become very popular in recent years as evident, for example, in the auction and mechanism design community. However, a growing body of research is now emerging which points out limitations in such mechanisms and advocates the idea that agents can increase the likelihood and quality of an agreement by exchanging <i>arguments</i> which influence each others' states. This community further argues that argument exchange is sometimes essential when various assumptions about agent rationality cannot be satisfied. To this end, in this article, we identify the main research motivations and ambitions behind work in the field. We then provide a conceptual framework through which we outline the core elements and features required by agents engaged in argumentation-based negotiation, as well as the environment that hosts these agents. For each of these elements, we survey and evaluate existing proposed techniques in the literature and highlight the major challenges that need to be addressed if argument-based negotiation research is to reach its full potential.

References

[1]

Amgoud, L. & Cayrol, C. 1998 On the acceptability of arguments in preference-based argumentation. In Proceedings of the 14th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UA11998), San Francisco, CA. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 1-7.

Digital Library

[2]

Amgoud, L. & Maudet, N. 2002 Strategical considerations for argumentative agents (preliminary report). In Benferhat, S. & Giunchiglia, E. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Non-Monotonic Reasoning (NMR 2002): Special Session on Argument, Dialogue and Decision, pp. 399-407.

[3]

Amgoud, L., Maudet, N. & Parsons, S. 2000a Modelling dialogues using argumentation. In Durfee, E. (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), Boston, MA. IEEE Press, pp. 31-38.

Digital Library

[4]

Amgoud, L., Maudet, N. & Parsons, S. 2002 An argumentation-based semantics for agent communication languages. In Harmelen, F. V. (ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2002), Lyon, France. IOS Press, pp. 38-42.

[5]

Amgoud, L. & Parsons, S. 2001 Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In Meyer, J.-J. & Tambe, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories Architectures and Languages (ATAL 2001), Seattle, pp. 190-205.

Digital Library

[6]

Amgoud, L., Parsons, S. & Maudet, N. 2000b Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In Horn, W. (ed.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), Amsterdam, Netherlands. IOS Press, pp. 338-342.

[7]

Aristotle. 1928 In Ross, W. D. (ed.), Topics. Oxford: Clarendon.

[8]

Ashri, R., Rahwan, I. & Luck, M. 2003 Architectures for negotiating agents. In Marik, V., Müller, J. & Pechoucek, M. (eds.), Multi-Agent Systems and Applications III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Central and Eastern European Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (CEEMAS 2003) (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2691). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 136-146.

Digital Library

[9]

Austin, J. L. 1962 How To Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Originally delivered as the William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1955.)

[10]

Bartolini, C., Preist, C. & Jennings, N. R. 2002 Architecting for reuse: a software framework for automated negotiation. In Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J. & Weiss, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE-2002). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Digital Library

[11]

Bench-Capon, T. J. M. 2001 Truth and consequence: complementing logic with value in legal reasoning. Information and Communications Technology Law <b>10</b>(1).

[12]

Castelfranchi, C., Conte, R. & Paolucci, M. Normative reputation and the costs of compliance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1998.

[13]

Chesñevar, C. I., Maguitman, A. & Loui, R. 2000 Logical models of argument. ACM Computing Surveys <b>32</b>(4), 337-383.

Digital Library

[14]

Coleman, J. S. 1990 Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[15]

Colombetti, M. 2000 A commitment-based approach to agent speech acts and conversations. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Languages and Conversational Policies, pp. 21-29.

[16]

Conitzer, V. & Sandholm, T. 2002 Complexity of mechanism design. In Darwiche, A. & Friedman, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the 18th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-2002), pp. 103-110.

Digital Library

[17]

Dash, R. K., Parkes, D. C. & Jennings, N. R. 2003 Computational mechanism design: a call to arms. IEEE Intelligent Systems <b>18</b>(6), 40-47.

Digital Library

[18]

de Boer, F., van Eijk, R. M., van der Hoek, W. & Meyer, J.-J. 2003 A fully abstract model for the exchange of information in multi-agent systems. Theoretical Computer Science <b>290</b>(3), 1753-1773.

Digital Library

[19]

Dignum, F., Dunin-Keplicz, B. & Berbrugge, R. 2000 Agent theory for team formation by dialogue. In Castelfranchi, C. & Lespérance, Y. (eds.), Intelligent Agents VII. Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL-2000) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1986). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 150-166.

Digital Library

[20]

Dung, P. M. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence <b>77</b>(2), 321-358.

Digital Library

[21]

Durfee, E. H. 1999 Practically coordinating. Artificial Intelligence Magazine <b>20</b>(1), 99-116.

[22]

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P. & Fox, J. 1993a Acceptability of arguments as "logical uncertainty". In Clarke, M., Kruse, R. & Moral, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and Uncertainty (ECSQARU 1993) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 747). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 85-90.

Digital Library

[23]

Elvang-Gøransson, M., Krause, P. & Fox, J. 1993b Dialectic reasoning with inconsistent information. In Heckerman, D. & Mamdani, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC. Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 114-121.

[24]

Esteva, M., Rodríguez, J. A., Sierra, C., Garcia, P. & Arcos, J. L. 2001 On the formal specifications of electronic institutions. In Dignum, F. & Sierra, C. (eds.), Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce (The European AgentLink Perspective) (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1991). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 126-147.

Digital Library

[25]

Faratin, P. 2000 Automated Service Negotiation Between Autonomous Computational Agents. PhD thesis. Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.

[26]

Faratin, P., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. 1998 Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. International Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems <b>24</b>(3-4), 159-182.

[27]

Faratin, P., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. 2002 Using similarity criteria to make trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence <b>142</b>(2), 205-237.

[28]

Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. 2001 Optimal negotiation strategies for agents with incomplete information. In Meyer, J.-J. & Tambe, M. (eds.), Intelligent Agent Series VIII. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 2001) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2333). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pages 53-68.

Digital Library

[29]

Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. 2002 Multi-issue negotiation under time constraints. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2002), New York, USA. ACM Press, pp. 143-150.

Digital Library

[30]

Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M. & Jennings, N. R. 2004 An agenda based framework for multi-issues negotiation. Artificial Intelligence Journal <b>152</b>(1), 1-45.

Digital Library

[31]

FIPA. 2001 Communicative Act Library Specification. 2001 Technical report XC00037H, Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents.

[32]

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. 1983 Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Books.

[33]

Fox, J. & Parsons, S. 1998 Arguing about beliefs and actions. In Hunter A. & Parsons, S. (eds.), Applications of Uncertainty Formalisms (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1455). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 266-302.

Digital Library

[34]

Fung, T. & Kowalski, R. 1997 The iff proof procedure for abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic Programming <b>33</b>(1), 151-165.

[35]

Glass, A. & Grosz, B. 2003 Socially conscious decision-making. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems <b>6</b>(3), 317-339.

Digital Library

[36]

Gordon, T. F. & Karacapilidis, N. 1997 The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law, New York, USA. ACM Press, pp. 10-18.

Digital Library

[37]

Gordon, T. F., Karacapilidis, N., Voss, H. & Zauke, A. 1997 Computer-mediated cooperative spatial planning. In Timmermans, H. (ed.), Decision Support Systems in Urban Planning. E and F. N. Spon, pp. 299-309.

[38]

Habermas, J. 1984 The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

[39]

Hamblin, C. L. 1970 Fallacies. London: Methuen.

[40]

Harsanyi, J. C. 1956 Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: a critical discussion of Zeuthen's, Hicks', and Nash's theories. Econometrica <b>24</b>, 144-157.

[41]

Hendler, J. & McGuinness, D. L. 2000 The DARPA agent markup language. IEEE Intelligent Systems <b>15</b>(6), 67-73.

[42]

Hitchcock, D. 2002 Aristotle's theory of argument evaluation. In Boudouris, K. & Poulakos, J. (eds.), The Philosophy of Communication, Vol. 1. Athens: Ionia Press.

[43]

Huget, M.-P. & Wooldridge, M. 2003 Model checking for ACL compliance verification. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Communication Languages and Conversation Policies. To appear.

Digital Library

[44]

Jennings, N. R. 2000 On agent-based software engineering. Artificial Intelligence <b>117</b>(2), 277-296.

Digital Library

[45]

Jennings, N. R. 2001 An agent-based approach for building complex software systems. Communications of the ACM <b>44</b>(4), 35-41.

Digital Library

[46]

Jennings, N. R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A. R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C. & Wooldridge, M. 2001 Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation <b>10</b>(2), 199-215.

[47]

Jennings, N. R., Parsons, S., Noriega, P. & Sierra, C. 1998 On argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, Boston, pp. 1-7.

Digital Library

[48]

Kakas, A. & Moraitis, P. 2003 Argumentation based decision making for autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2003), Melbourne, Australia, pp. 883-890.

Digital Library

[49]

Karlins, M. & Abelson, H. I. 1970 Persuasion. How Opinions and Attitudes are Changed, 2nd edn. Lockwood.

[50]

Kowalczyk, R. 2000 On negotiation as a distributed fuzzy constraint satisfaction problem. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Soft Computing for Industry. World Automation Congress, pp. 631-637.

[51]

Kowalczyk, R. & Bui, V. 2001 On constraint-based reasoning in e-negotiation agents. In Dighum, F. & Cortés, U. (eds.), Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce III (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2003). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 31-46.

Digital Library

[52]

Kraus, S. 2001 Strategic Negotiation in Multi-Agent Environments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Digital Library

[53]

Krause, P., Ambler, S., Elvang-Gøransson, M. & Fox, J. 1995 A logic of argumentation for reasoning under uncertainty. Computational Intelligence <b>11</b>, 113-131.

[54]

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

Digital Library

[55]

Labrou, Y., Finin, T. & Peng, Y. 1999 Agent communication languages: the current landscape. Intelligent Systems <b>14</b>(2), 45-52.

Digital Library

[56]

Larson, K. & Sandholm, T. 2002 An alternating offers bargaining model for computationally limited agents. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002), pp. 135-142.

Digital Library

[57]

Lilien, G. L., Kotler, P. & Moorthy, S. K. 1992 Marketing Models. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[58]

Loui, R. 1987 Defeat among arguments: a system of defeasible inference. Computational Intelligence <b>3</b>, 100-106.

[59]

Luo, X., Jennings, N. R., Shadbolt, N., Leung, H.-F. & Lee, J. H.-M. 2003 A fuzzy constraint-based knowledge model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence <b>148</b>(1-2), 53-102.

[60]

Luo, X., Zhang, C. & Jennings, N. R. 2002 A hybrid model for sharing information between fuzzy, uncertain and default reasoning models in multi-agent systems. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems <b>10</b>(4), 401-450.

Digital Library

[61]

Maudet, N. & Chaib-draa, B. 2003 Commitment-based and dialogue-game based protocols-new trends in agent communication language. Knowledge Engineering Review <b>17</b>(2), 157-179.

Digital Library

[62]

Mayfield, J., Labrou, Y. & Finin, T. 1996 Evaluating KQML as an agent communication language. In Wooldridge, M. J., Müller, J. P. & Tambe, M. (eds.), Intelligent Agents II (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1039). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 347-360.

[63]

McBurney, P. 2002 Rational Interaction. PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.

[64]

McBurney, P., Parsons, S. & Wooldridge, M. 2002 Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2002), New York. ACM Press, pp. 402-409.

Digital Library

[65]

McBurney, P., van Eijk, R. M., Parsons, S. & Amgoud, L. 2003 A dialogue-game protocol for agent purchase negotiations. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems <b>7</b>(3), 235-273.

Digital Library

[66]

McGuinness, D. L. 2001 Ontologies and online commerce. IEEE Intelligent Systems <b>16</b>(1), 8-14.

[67]

McGuinness, D. L. & van Harmelen, F. 2003 Web ontology language (OWL): overview. Technical report, W3C Working Draft.

[68]

Moulin, B. & Chaib-Draa, B. 1996 A review of distributed artificial intelligence. In O'Hare, G. & Jennings, N. R. (eds.), Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 3-55.

Digital Library

[69]

Mukherjee, R., Banerjee, B. & Sen, S. 2001 Learning mutual trust. In Falcone, R., Singh, M. P. & Tan, Y.-H. (eds.), Trust in Cyber-societies (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 145-158.

Digital Library

[70]

Osborne, M. J. & Rubinstein, A. 1994 A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[71]

Panzarasa, P. & Jennings, N. R. 2002 Social influence, negotiation and cognition. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory <b>10</b>(5-7), 417-453.

[72]

Panzarasa, P., Jennings, N. R. & Norman, T. J. 2002 Formalising collaborative decision making and practical reasoning in multi-agent systems. Journal of Logic and Computation <b>12</b>(1), 55-117.

[73]

Parsons, S. & Giorgini, P. 2000 An approach to using degrees of belief in BDI agents. In Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R. R. & Zadeh, L. A. (eds.), Information, Uncertainty and Fusion. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

[74]

Parsons, S., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation <b>8</b>(3), 261-292.

[75]

Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M. & Amgoud, L. 2002 An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS-2002), New York, USA. ACM Press, pp. 394-401.

Digital Library

[76]

Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M. & Amgoud, L. 2003 On the outcomes of formal inter-agent dialogues. In Rosenschein, J., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M. & Yokoo, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2003). ACM Press, pp. 616-623.

Digital Library

[77]

Parunak, H. V. D. P. 1999 Industrial and practical applications of DAI. In Weiss, G. (ed.), Multiagent Systems. A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 377-421.

Digital Library

[78]

Prakken, H. & Sartor, G. 2001 The role of logic in computational models of legal argument: a critical survey. In Kakas, A. & Sadri, F. (eds.), Computational Logic. From Logic Programming into the Future (in honour of Bob Kowalski) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2048). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 342-343.

Digital Library

[79]

Prakken, H. & Vreeswijk, G. 2002 Logics for defeasible argumentation. In Gabbay, D. & Guenthner, F. (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 4, 2nd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 219-318.

[80]

Pynadath, D. & Tambe, M. 2002 Multiagent teamwork: analyzing key teamwork theories and models. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2002), New York, USA. ACM Press, pp. 873-880.

Digital Library

[81]

Rahwan, I., Kowalczyk, R. & Pham, H. H. 2002 Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. In Oudshoorn, M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Computer Science. Australian Computer Society Press, pp. 197-204.

Digital Library

[82]

Rahwan, I., McBurney, P. & Sonenberg, L. 2003a Towards a theory of negotiation strategy (a preliminary report). In Parsons, S. & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents (GTDT-2003), pp. 73-80.

[83]

Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L. & Dignum, F. 2003b On interest-based negotiation. In Dignum, F. (ed.), Advances in Agent Communication (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2922). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

[84]

Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L. & Dignum, F. 2003c Towards interest-based negotiation. In Rosenschein, J., Sandholm, T., Wooldridge, M. & Yokoo, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2003). ACM Press, pp. 773-780.

Digital Library

[85]

Ramchurn, S., Sierra, C., Godo, L. & Jennings, N. R. 2003a A computational trust model for multi-agent interactions based on confidence and reputation. In Proceedings of the workshop on Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Melbourne, Australia, pp. 69-75.

[86]

Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R. & Sierra, C. 2003b Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: a rhetorical approach. In Reed, C., Grasso, F. & Carenini, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument. AAAI Press, pp. 9-17.

[87]

Rao, A. S. & Georgeff, M. P. 1995 Formal models and decision procedures for multi-agent systems. Technical report 61, Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute, Melbourne.

[88]

Rodriguez-Aguilar, J. A. & Sierra, C. 2002 Enabling open agent institutions. In Dautenhahn, K., Bond, A. H., Cañamero, L. & Edmonds, B. (eds.), Socially Intelligent Agents. Creating Relationships with Computers and Robots. Kluwer, pp. 259-266.

[89]

Rosenschein, J. & Zlotkin, G. 1994 Rules of Encounter. Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Digital Library

[90]

Rubiera, J. C., Lopez, J. M. M. & Muro, J. D. 2001 A fuzzy model of reputation in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Autonomous Agents. ACM Press, pp. 25-26.

Digital Library

[91]

Rubinstein, A. 1997 Modeling Bounded Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[92]

Sabater, J. & Sierra, C. 2002 Regret: a reputation model for gregarious societies. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2002). ACM Press, pp. 475-482.

[93]

Sadri, F., Toni, F. & Torroni, P. 2001a Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In Meyer, J.-J. & Tambe, M. (eds.), Intelligent Agent Series VIII. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages (ATAL 2001) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2333). Berlin: Springer, pp. 69-84.

Digital Library

[94]

Sadri, F., Toni, F. & Torroni, P. 2001b Logic agents, dialogues and negotiation: an abductive approach. In Stathis, K. & Schroeder, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the AISB 2001 Symposium on Information Agents for E-Commerce.

[95]

Sadri, F., Toni, F. & Torroni, P. 2002 Abductive logic programming architecture for negotiating agents. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Logics in Artificial Intelligence (JELIA-2002) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2424). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 419-431.

Digital Library

[96]

Samuelson, L. 1998 Evolutionary Games and Equilibrium Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[97]

Sandholm, T. 2002a Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artificial Intelligence <b>135</b>(1-2), 1-54.

Digital Library

[98]

Sandholm, T. 2002b eMediator: a next generation electronic commerce server. Computational Intelligence, Special issue on Agent Technology for Electronic Commerce <b>18</b>(4), 656-676.

[99]

Sandholm, T. & Crites, R. 1995 Multiagent reinforcement learning in the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Biosystems (Special Issue on the Prisoner's Dilemma) <b>37</b>, 147-166.

[100]

Searle, J. 1969 Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[101]

Sen, S., Biswas, A. & Debnath, S. 2002 Believing others: pros and cons. Artificial Intelligence <b>142</b>(2), 179-203.

[102]

Sierra, C., Faratin, P. & Jennings, N. R. 1997 A service-oriented negotiation model between autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the 8th European Workshop on Modeling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent Worm (MAAMAW-1997), Ronneby, Sweden, pp. 17-35.

Digital Library

[103]

Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R., Noriega, P. & Parsons, S. 1998 A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In Singh, M., Rao, A. & Wooldridge, M. (eds.), Intelligent Agent IV. 4th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL-1997) (Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1365). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 177-192.

Digital Library

[104]

Singh, M. P. 2000 A social semantics of agent communication languages. In Dignum, F. & Greaves, M. (eds.), Issues in Agent Communication (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1916). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 31-45.

Digital Library

[105]

Spence, A. M. 1974 Market Signaling. Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes (Harvard Economic Studies). Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

[106]

Sycara, K. 1985 Arguments of persuasion in labour mediation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 294-296.

[107]

Sycara, K. 1992 The PERSUADER. In Shapiro, D. (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

[108]

Tohmé, F. 1997 Negotiation and defeasible reasons for choice. In Proceedings of the Stanford Spring Symposium on Qualitative Preferences in Deliberation and Practical Reasoning, pp. 95-102.

[109]

Torroni, P. 2002 A study on the termination of negotiation dialogues. In Castelfranchi, C. & Johnson, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2002), New York, USA. ACM Press, pp. 1223-1230.

Digital Library

[110]

Torroni, P. & Toni, F. 2001 Extending a logic based one-to-one negotiation framework to one-to-many negotiation. In Omicini, P. P. A. & Tolksdorf, R. (eds.), 2nd International Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents Worm II (ESAW 2001) Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2203). Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 105-118.

Digital Library

[111]

Traum, D. 1999 Speech acts for dialogue agents. In Wooldridge, M. & Rao, A. (eds.), Foundations And Theories Of Rational Agents. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 169-201.

[112]

Varian, H. R. 1995 Mechanism design for computerized agents. In Proceedings of the USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, New York.

Digital Library

[113]

von Neuman J. & Morgenstern, O. 1944 The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

[114]

von Stengel, B. 2002 Computing equilibria for two-person games. In Aumann, R. & Hart, S. (eds.), Handbook of Game Theory, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1723-1759.

[115]

Vreeswijk, G. 1997 Abstract argumentation systems. Artificial Intelligence <b>90</b>(1-2), 225-279.

Digital Library

[116]

Walton, D. N. & Krabbe, E. C. W. 1995 Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.

[117]

Wooldridge, M. & Parsons, S. 2000 Languages for negotiation. In Horn, W. (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2000). John Wiley & Sons, pp. 393-397.

[118]

Wooldridge, M. J. 1997 Agent-based software engineering, lEE Proceedings on Software Engineering <b>144</b>(1), 26-37.

[119]

Wooldridge, M. J. 2000 Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press.

[120]

Wooldridge, M. J. 2002 An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Digital Library

[121]

Wurman, P. R. 1999 Market Structure and Multidimensional Auction Design for Computational Economies. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.

Digital Library

[122]

Wurman, P. R., Wellman, M. P. & Walsh, W. E. 2001 A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior <b>35</b>(1-2), 304-338.

[123]

Yokoo, M. 1998 The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: formalization and algorithms. IEEE Transaction on Knowledge and Data Engineering <b>10</b>(5), 673-685.

Digital Library

[124]

Young, M. A. 2001 Rational Games: A Philosophy of Business Negotiation from Practical Reason. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

[125]

Yu, B. & Singh, M. P. 2002 Distributed reputation management for electronic commerce. Computational Intelligence <b>18</b>(4), 535-549.

[126]

Zeng, D. & Sycara, K. 1997 Benefits of learning in negotiation. In Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and 9th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference (AAAI-97/ IAAI-97). Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press, pp. 36-42

Digital Library

Cited By

Andrade-Garda JAres-Casal JHidalgo-Lorenzo MLara JLizcano DSuárez-Garaboa S(2022)A centralized matching scheme to solve the role-partner allocation problem in collaborative networksComputers and Industrial Engineering10.1016/j.cie.2022.108244169:COnline publication date: 1-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108244
Mariani SFerrari DZambonelli F(2022)Cooperative Driving at Intersections Through Agent-Based ArgumentationPRIMA 2022: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-21203-1_3(37-53)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-21203-1_3
Mariani SCabri GZambonelli F(2021)Coordination of Autonomous VehiclesACM Computing Surveys10.1145/343123154:1(1-33)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3431231
Show More Cited By

Argumentation-based negotiation
1. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence

Recommendations

Argumentation-based negotiation planning for autonomous agents

When we negotiate, the arguments uttered to persuade the opponent are not the result of an isolated analysis, but of an integral view of the problem that we want to agree about. Before the negotiation starts, we have in mind what arguments we can utter, ...
Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation
AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

In this paper, we study how argumentation can be used as a basis for negotiation between autonomous agents, where negotiation strategies of the different parties are represented as argumentation theories within their knowledge. We propose an ...
Characterizing the Outcomes of Argumentation-Based Integrative Negotiation
WI-IAT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 02

In the negotiation literature we find two relatively distinct types of negotiation. The two types are known as integrative negotiations and distributive negotiations. Integrative negotiations are those where all sides are looking for solutions that are "...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image The Knowledge Engineering Review

The Knowledge Engineering Review Volume 18, Issue 4

December 2003

83 pages

ISSN:0269-8889

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Cambridge University Press

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 2003

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

153
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 12 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Andrade-Garda JAres-Casal JHidalgo-Lorenzo MLara JLizcano DSuárez-Garaboa S(2022)A centralized matching scheme to solve the role-partner allocation problem in collaborative networksComputers and Industrial Engineering10.1016/j.cie.2022.108244169:COnline publication date: 1-Jul-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.cie.2022.108244
Mariani SFerrari DZambonelli F(2022)Cooperative Driving at Intersections Through Agent-Based ArgumentationPRIMA 2022: Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-031-21203-1_3(37-53)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-21203-1_3
Mariani SCabri GZambonelli F(2021)Coordination of Autonomous VehiclesACM Computing Surveys10.1145/343123154:1(1-33)Online publication date: 11-Feb-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3431231
Yasser AAbu-Elkhier MGrundy J(2021)Towards fluid software architecturesProceedings of the 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering10.1109/ASE51524.2021.9678647(1368-1372)Online publication date: 15-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/ASE51524.2021.9678647
Dimopoulos YMailly JMoraitis P(2021)Arguing and negotiating using incomplete negotiators profilesAutonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/s10458-021-09493-y35:2Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10458-021-09493-y
Morveli-Espinoza MPossebom ATacla C(2021)A Protocol for Argumentation-Based Persuasive Negotiation DialoguesIntelligent Systems10.1007/978-3-030-91702-9_2(18-32)Online publication date: 29-Nov-2021
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-91702-9_2
Montagna SMariani SGamberini ERicci AZambonelli F(2020)Complementing Agents with Cognitive Services: A Case Study in HealthcareJournal of Medical Systems10.1007/s10916-020-01621-744:10Online publication date: 15-Sep-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10916-020-01621-7
Mezgebe TBril El Haouzi HDemesure GPannequin RThomas A(2020)Multi-agent systems negotiation to deal with dynamic scheduling in disturbed industrial contextJournal of Intelligent Manufacturing10.1007/s10845-019-01515-731:6(1367-1382)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10845-019-01515-7
Morveli Espinoza MPossebom ATacla C(2020)On the calculation of the strength of threatsKnowledge and Information Systems10.1007/s10115-019-01399-262:4(1511-1538)Online publication date: 1-Apr-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10115-019-01399-2
Morveli-Espinoza MNieves JTacla C(2020)Measuring the Strength of Rhetorical ArgumentsMulti-Agent Systems and Agreement Technologies10.1007/978-3-030-66412-1_26(415-430)Online publication date: 22-Apr-2020
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-66412-1_26
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents