Managing social influences through argumentation-based negotiation

Social influences play an important part in the actions that an individual agent may perform within a multi-agent society. However, the incomplete knowledge and the diverse and conflicting influences present within such societies, may stop an agent from abiding by all its social influences. This may, in turn, lead to conflicts that the agents need to identify, manage, and resolve in order for the society to behave in a coherent manner. To this end, we present an empirical study of an argumentation-based negotiation (ABN) approach that allows the agents to detect such conflicts, and then manage and resolve them through the use of argumentative dialogues. To test our theory, we map our ABN model to a multi-agent task allocation scenario. Our results show that using an argumentation approach allows agents to both efficiently and effectively manage their social influences even under high degrees of incompleteness. Finally, we show that allowing agents to argue and resolve such conflicts early in the negotiation encounter increases their efficiency in managing social influences.

[1]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-Agent Argument over Proposals for Action , 2004, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[2]  Cristiano Castelfranchi,et al.  Commitments: From Individual Intentions to Groups and Organizations , 1995, ICMAS.

[3]  Peter McBurney,et al.  A Dialogue Game Protocol for Agent Purchase Negotiations , 2003, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[4]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Motivational Attitudes of Agents: On Desires, Obligations, and Norms , 2001, CEEMAS.

[5]  Victor R. Lesser,et al.  Advantages of a Leveled Commitment Contracting Protocol , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[6]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Argument-based negotiation in a social context , 2005, Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

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

[8]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Contrary‐to‐duty reasoning with preference‐based dyadic obligations , 1999, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[9]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[10]  Jörgen Jörgensen,et al.  Imperatives and logic , 1937, Erkenntnis.

[11]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Arguing and Negotiating in the Presence of Social Influences , 2005, CEEMAS.

[12]  Nishan C. Karunatillake,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation in a social context , 2006 .

[13]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Argumentation-based negotiation , 2003, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[14]  Henri Prade,et al.  Reaching Agreement Through Argumentation: A Possibilistic Approach , 2004, KR.

[15]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: A rhetorical approach , 2003, IJCAI 2003.

[16]  Liz Sonenberg,et al.  On social commitment, roles and preferred goals , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[17]  Nicoletta Fornara,et al.  Interaction and communication among autonomous agents in multiagent systems , 2003 .

[18]  Marc Esteva,et al.  On the formal specification of electronic institutions , 2001 .

[19]  KrausSarit,et al.  Reaching agreements through argumentation , 1998 .

[20]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Is It Worth Arguing? , 2004, ArgMAS.