Logical Foundations of Negotiation: Outcome, Concession, and Adaptation

This paper provides a logical framework for negotiation between agents that are assumed to be rational, cooperative and truthful. We present a characterisation of the permissible outcomes of a process of negotiation in terms of a set of rationality postulates, as well as a method for constructing exactly the rational outcomes. The framework is extended by describing two modes of negotiation from which an outcome can be reached. In the concessionary mode, agents are required to weaken their demands in order to accommodate the demands of others. In the adaptationist mode, agents are required to adapt to the demands of others in some appropriate fashion. Both concession and adaptation are characterised in terms of rationality postulates. We also provide methods for constructing exactly the rational concessions, as well as the rational adaptations. The central result of the paper is the observation that the outcomes obtained from the concessionary and adaptationist modes both correspond to the rational outcomes. We conclude by pointing out the links between negotiation and AGM belief change, and providing a glimpse of how this may be used to define a notion of preference-based negotiation.

[1]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Logical Foundations of Negotiation: Strategies and Preferences , 2004, KR.

[2]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein and Gilad Zlotkin Rules of Encounter , 1994 .

[3]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Languages for Negotiation , 2000, ECAI.

[4]  Belief revision for adaptive negotiation agents , 2003, IEEE/WIC International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, 2003. IAT 2003..

[5]  Katia Sycara,et al.  Persuasive argumentation in negotiation , 1990 .

[6]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[7]  Ron van der Meyden,et al.  Mutual Belief Revision (Preliminary Report) , 1994, KR.

[8]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Reaching Agreements Through Argumentation: A Logical Model and Implementation , 1998, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Agents That Reason and Negotiate by Arguing , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[10]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning , 1995 .

[11]  Richard Booth,et al.  Social contraction and belief negotiation , 2002, Inf. Fusion.

[12]  Tuomas Sandholm eMediator: A Next Generation Electronic Commerce Server , 2002, Comput. Intell..

[13]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[14]  Tung Bui,et al.  Negotiation processes, Evolutionary Systems Design, and NEGOTIATOR , 1996 .

[15]  R. Booth A negotiation-style framework for non-prioritised revision , 2001 .

[16]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents , 1998, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[17]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments , 2001, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

[18]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Negotiation as Mutual Belief Revision , 2004, AAAI.

[19]  C. E. Alchourrón,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985 .