Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision

The importance of negotiation has increased in the last years as a relevant interaction to solve conflicts in multiagent systems. Although there are many different scenarios, a typical negotiating situation involves two cooperative agents that cannot reach their goals by themselves because they do not have some resources needed to reach such goals. Therefore, a way to improve their mutual benefit is to start a negotiation dialogue, taking into account that they might have incomplete or incorrect beliefs about the other agent’s goals and resources. The exchange of arguments during the negotiation gives them information that makes it possible to update their beliefs and consequently they can offer proposals which are closer for reaching a deal. In order to formalize their proposals in a negotiation setting, the agents must be able to generate, select and evaluate arguments associated with such offers, updating their mental state accordingly. We situate our work on this kind of scenarios with two argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision operations in the generation and interpretation of arguments. It has been proved that those agents that take advantage of belief revision during the negotiation achieve an overall better performance. Because the belief revision process depends on the information the agents exchange in their utterances, in this paper we focus on different communication strategies the agents may implement and the impact that they have in the negotiation process. For this purpose, we present a negotiation protocol where the messages are extended to include a critique to the last proposal received and a counterproposal. Also, we define proposals that may be more or less informative containing different justifications. An intentional agent architecture is proposed and following this model different kind of negotiating agents are created using diverse communication strategies. To assess the impact these strategies have in the negotiation process some simulations are conducted, analyzing the results obtained.

[1]  Li Chen,et al.  Critiquing-based recommenders: survey and emerging trends , 2012, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[2]  Frank Dignum,et al.  On the Benefits of Exploiting Underlying Goals in Argument-based Negotiation , 2007, AAAI.

[3]  Pavlos Moraitis,et al.  A unified and general framework for argumentation-based negotiation , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[4]  Guillermo Ricardo Simari,et al.  On the evolving relation between Belief Revision and Argumentation , 2011, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

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

[6]  Dongmo Zhang,et al.  A logic-based axiomatic model of bargaining , 2010, Artif. Intell..

[7]  N. Iyadrahwa,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2004 .

[8]  Helder Coelho,et al.  Negotiation and Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems , 2014 .

[9]  Mare Koit,et al.  A computational model of argumentation in agreement negotiation processes , 2015, Argument Comput..

[10]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  A formal analysis of the outcomes of argumentation-based negotiations , 2011, AAMAS.

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

[12]  Eduardo L. Fermé,et al.  Multiple Kernel Contraction , 2003, Stud Logica.

[13]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[14]  Leite PTorroni Jo.  Graded BDI models for agent architectures , 2017 .

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

[16]  Carlos Iván Chesñevar,et al.  The Double Knapsack Negotiation Problem: Modeling Cooperative Agents and Experimenting Negotiation Strategies , 2014, IBERAMIA.

[17]  Paulo Novais,et al.  The Effect of Decision Satisfaction Prediction in Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 2016, PAAMS.

[18]  N. R. Jennings,et al.  To appear in: Int Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation GDN2000 Keynote Paper Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges , 2022 .

[19]  Giacomo Bonanno,et al.  Special Issue on Formal Models of Belief Change in Rational Agents , 2009, J. Appl. Log..

[20]  Carles Sierra,et al.  The LOGIC negotiation model , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[21]  Chiaki Sakama.  Dishonest Reasoning by Abduction , 2011, IJCAI.

[22]  Alison R. Panisson,et al.  Planning Interactions for Agents in Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 2014 .

[23]  Pablo Noriega,et al.  A Framework for Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 1997, ATAL.

[24]  Eduardo Alonso Fernández,et al.  Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers , 1995 .

[25]  Frank Dignum,et al.  An empirical study of interest-based negotiation , 2010, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[26]  Nir Oren,et al.  Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Opponent Models with Uncertainty for Strategic Argumentation , 2022 .

[27]  Robert Demolombe,et al.  An argumentation-based approach for reasoning about trust in information sources , 2014, Argument Comput..

[28]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Agent planning programs , 2016, Artif. Intell..

[29]  Carlos Iván Chesñevar,et al.  A belief revision approach for argumentation-based negotiation agents , 2015, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci..

[30]  Srdjan Vesic,et al.  A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues , 2012, J. Log. Comput..

[31]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

[32]  Yannis Dimopoulos and Pavlos Moraitis.  Advances in Argumentation-Based Negotiation , 2014 .