Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentation–Based Negotiation? Negotiation–Based Argumentation!

  • Conference paper
E-Commerce and Web Technologies (EC-Web 2012)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 123))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We design a protocol for two autonomous negotiating agents to incorporate Dung-style argumentation into an ongoing bargaining dialogue. Previous approaches considered bargaining and Dung-Style Argumentation as separated components, we show that intertwining these approaches increases the agents scope of action. In our framework the acceptance of an argument or attack uttered by self-interested agents is conditional on the acceptance by the negotiating partner. Our protocol thus enables autonomous agents to engage in a variety of human negotiation behaviours and thereby increase the agents capabilities to come to mutually satisfactory agreements.

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. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: On the bipolarity in argumentation frameworks. In: Proceedings of NMR-UF, pp. 1–9 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 158:1–158:8. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, Dialogue, and Negotiation. In: Horn, W. (ed.) Proceedings of ECAI, pp. 338–342. IOS Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: On Revising Argumentation-Based Decision Systems. In: Sossai, C., Chemello, G. (eds.) ECSQARU 2009. LNCS, vol. 5590, pp. 71–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Anandalingam, G., Day, R.W., Raghavan, S.: The Landscape of Electronic Market Design. Manage Sci. 51(3), 316–327 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson, K.: Value-Based Argumentation for Democratic Decision Support. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 47–58. IOS Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: On principle-based evaluation of extension-based argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 675–700 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M.: Semantics of Abstract Argument Systems. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 25–44. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Baroni, P., Giacomin, M., Guida, G.: SCC-recursiveness: a general schema for argumentation semantics. Artif. Intell. 168(1-2), 162–210 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Temporal Dynamics of Support and Attack Networks: From Argumentation to Zoology. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Bench-Capon, T.: Agreeing to Differ: Modelling Persuasive Dialogue Between Parties With Different Values. Informal Logic 22(3), 231–245 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bench-Capon, T.J., Doutre, S., Dunne, P.E.: Audiences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 171(1), 42–71 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bench-Capon, T.J., Dunne, P.E.: Argumentation in artificial intelligence. Artif. Intell. 171, 619–641 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bisquert, P., Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C.: Change in Argumentation Systems: Exploring the Interest of Removing an Argument. In: Benferhat, S., Grant, J. (eds.) SUM 2011. LNCS, vol. 6929, pp. 275–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Blum-Kulka, S., Blondheim, M., Hacohen, G.: Traditions of dispute: from negotiations of talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media. J. Pragmatics 34(10-11), 1569–1594 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Boella, G., Gabbay, D., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Meta-Argumentation Modelling I: Methodology and Techniques. Studia Logica 93, 297–355 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boella, G., Kaci, S., van der Torre, L.: Dynamics in Argumentation with Single Extensions: Attack Refinement and the Grounded Extension (Extended Version). In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Maudet, N. (eds.) ArgMAS 2009. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6057, pp. 150–159. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Brewka, G.: Dynamic Argument Systems: A Formal Model of Argumentation Processes Based on Situation Calculus. J. Logic Comput. 11(2), 257–282 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brewka, G., Eiter, T.: Argumentation Context Systems: A Framework for Abstract Group Argumentation. In: Erdem, E., Lin, F., Schaub, T. (eds.) LPNMR 2009. LNCS, vol. 5753, pp. 44–57. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Broersen, J., Dastani, M., Hulstijn, J., Huang, Z., van der Torre, L.: The BOID architecture: Conflicts between beliefs, obligations, intentions, and desires. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents, pp. 9–16. ACM (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Caminada, M.: Semi-Stable Semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J. (eds.) Proceedings of COMMA, vol. 144, pp. 121–130. IOS Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Caminada, M., Amgoud, L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5-6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Caminada, M., Pigozzi, G.: On judgment aggregation in abstract argumentation. Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst. 22, 64–102 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cayrol, C., Devred, C., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Handling Ignorance in Argumentation: Semantics of Partial Argumentation Frameworks. In: Mellouli, K. (ed.) ECSQARU 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4724, pp. 259–270. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Cayrol, C., de Saint-Cyr, F., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.: Revision of an Argumentation System. In: Proceedings of KR, pp. 124–134 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Chesñevar, C.I., McGinnis, J., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G.R., South, M., Vreeswijk, G., Willmott, S.: Towards an Argument Interchange Format. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(4), 293–316 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Coase, R.H.: The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4(16), 386–405 (1937)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Coase, R.H.: The Problem of Social Cost. J. Law Econ. 3(1), 1–44 (1960)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Konieczny, S., Lagasquie-Schiex, M.C., Marquis, P.: On the merging of Dung’s argumentation systems. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 730–753 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Coste-Marquis, S., Devred, C., Marquis, P.: Prudent Semantics for Argumentation Frameworks. In: Proceedings of ICTAI, pp. 568–572 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Davis, R., Smith, R.G.: Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artif. Intell. 20(1), 63–109 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning and logic programming. In: Proceedings of IJCAI, pp. 852–857. Morgan Kaufmann (1993)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dung, P., Mancarella, P., Toni, F.: A dialectic procedure for sceptical, assumption-based argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA, pp. 145–156. IOS Press (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Dunne, P.E., Hunter, A., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Weighted argument systems: Basic definitions, algorithms, and complexity results. Artif. Intell. 175(2), 457–486 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation. Artif. Intell. 152(1), 1–45 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghton Mifflin (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gorogiannis, N., Hunter, A.: Instantiating abstract argumentation with classical logic arguments: Postulates and properties. Artif. Intell. 175(9-10), 1479–1497 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Haenni, R., Romeijn, J.W., Wheeler, G., Williamson, J.: Probabilistic Argumentation. In: Probabilistic Logics and Probabilistic Networks, Synthese Library, vol. 350. Springer (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jennings, N.R., Parsons, S., Noriega, P., Sierra, C.: On Argumentation-Based Negotiation. In: Proceedings of IWMAS, pp. 1–7 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Jennings, N., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Sierra, C.: Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. Group Decis. Negot. 10, 199–215 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Johnson, M.W., McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: A Mathematical Model of Dialog. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 141(5), 33–48 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R.: Is It Worth Arguing? In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 234–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Kośmicki, P.: A Platform for the Evaluation of Automated Argumentation Strategies. In: Szczuka, M., Kryszkiewicz, M., Ramanna, S., Jensen, R., Hu, Q. (eds.) RSCTC 2010. LNCS, vol. 6086, pp. 494–503. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Minton, J., Roy, J., Lewicki, N.: Negotiation, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Liao, B., Jin, L., Koons, R.C.: Dynamics of argumentation systems: A division-based method. Artif. Intell. 175(11), 1790–1814 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lomuscio, A.R., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce. Group Decis. Negot. 12, 31–56 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lopes, F., Coelho, H.: Strategic and Tactical Behaviour in Automated Negotiation. Int. J. Artif. Intel.l 4(S 10), 35–63 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Lopes, F., Wooldridge, M., Novais, A.: Negotiation among autonomous computational agents: principles, analysis and challenges. Artif. Intell. Rev. 29, 1–44 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mackenzie, J.D.: Question-Begging in Non-Cumulative Systems. J. Philos Logic 8(1), 117–133 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S.: The Eightfold Way of Deliberation Dialogue. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 22(1), 95–132 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 11, 315–334 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.: Desiderata for Agent Argumentation Protocols. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 402–409 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Oikarinen, E., Woltran, S.: Characterizing strong equivalence for argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 175(14-15), 1985–2009 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Oren, N., Norman, T., Preece, A.: Information Based Argumentation Heuristics. In: Maudet, N., Parsons, S., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4766, pp. 161–174. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  57. Oren, N., Norman, T.J., Precce, A.: Subjective logic and arguing with evidence. Artif. Intell. 171(10-15), 838–854 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Paglieri, F., Castelfranchi, C.: Why argue? Towards a cost-benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation 1(1), 71–91 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Parsons, S., Jennings, N.: Negotiation through argumentation - a preliminary report. In: Proceedings of ICMAS, pp. 267–274 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  60. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing. J. Logic Comput. 8(3), 261–292 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Prakken, H.: Relating Protocols For Dynamic Dispute With Logics For Defeasible Argumentation. Synthese 127, 187–219 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Prakken, H.: Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 21(2), 163–188 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rahwan, I., Larson, K.: Mechanism design for abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of AAMAS, pp. 1031–1038 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, L., Dignum, F.: A formal analysis of interest-based negotiation. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. 55, 253–276 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N.R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(04), 343–375 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rahwan, I., Simari, G.R.: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., McBurney, P.: Bargaining and Argument-Based Negotiation: Some Preliminary Comparisons. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  68. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Rao, A., Georgeff, M., et al.: BDI agents: From theory to practice. In: Proceedings ICMAS, pp. 312–319 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Reyes-Moro, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A., López-Sánchez, M., Cerquides, J., Gutierrez-Magallanes, D.: Embedding Decision Support in E-Sourcing Tools: Quotes, A Case Study. Group Decis. Negot. 12(4), 347–355 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rosenschein, J.S., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. MIT Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Rotstein, N.D., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Defeasible Argumentation Support for an Extended BDI Architecture. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 145–163. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Rueda, S.V., García, A.J., Simari, G.R.: Argument-based Negotiation among BDI agents. J. Comp. Sci. & Technol. 2(7), 1–8 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Rueda, S.V., Martinez, M.V.: A framework for deliberation and negotiation among BDI agents. J. Comp. Sci. & Technol. 5(4), 334–341 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Sandholm, T.W.: Distributed Rational Decision Making. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, ch.5, pp. 201–258. MIT Press (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Schmid, B., Lindemann, M.A.: Elements of a Reference Model for Electronic Markets. In: Proceedings of HICSS, pp. 193–201 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  77. Searle, J.R.: Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge Univerity Press (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  78. 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, Heidelberg (1998)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  79. Smith, R.: The Contract Net Protocol: High-Level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver. IEEE_J_C 100(12), 1104–1113 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ströbel, M., Weinhardt, C.: The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations. Group Decis. Negot. 12, 143–164 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Tohmé, F., Bodanza, G., Simari, G.: Aggregation of Attack Relations: A Social-Choice Theoretical Analysis of Defeasibility Criteria. In: Hartmann, S., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) FoIKS 2008. LNCS, vol. 4932, pp. 8–23. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.: Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York (1995)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, University of Applied Sciences, Arnulfstrasse 30, 80335, Munich, Germany

    Jürgen Landes & Ricardo Buettner

Authors
  1. Jürgen Landes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ricardo Buettner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Software Technology and Interactive Systems, Business Informatics Group (BIG), Vienna University of Technology, Favoritenstrasse 9 - 11 / 188-3, 1040, Vienna, Austria

    Christian Huemer

  2. Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Bari, Via E. Orabona, 4, I70126, Bari, Italy

    Pasquale Lops

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Landes, J., Buettner, R. (2012). Argumentation–Based Negotiation? Negotiation–Based Argumentation!. In: Huemer, C., Lops, P. (eds) E-Commerce and Web Technologies. EC-Web 2012. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 123. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32273-0_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32273-0_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-32272-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-32273-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation