On Interest-Based Negotiation

Negotiation is essential in settings where computational agents have conflicting interests and a desire to cooperate. 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. These can be seen as models of negotiation in which participants focus on their positions. It is argued, however, that if agents focus instead on the interests behind their positions, they may increase the likelihood and quality of an agreement. In order to achieve that, agents need to argue over each others’ goals and beliefs during the process of negotiation. In this paper, we identify concepts that seem essential for supporting this type of dialogue. In particular we investigate the types of arguments agents may exchange about each others’ interests, and we begin an analysis of dialogue moves involving goals.

[1]  R. Fisher,et al.  Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in , 1981 .

[2]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[3]  J. Habermas,et al.  The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

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

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

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

[7]  Peyman Faratin,et al.  Automated service negotiation between autonomous computational agents , 2000 .

[8]  Silvia Rossi,et al.  Intra-role Coordination Using Group Communication: A Preliminary Report , 2003, Workshop on Agent Communication Languages.

[9]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Towards interest-based negotiation , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[10]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Organizations and Normative Agents , 2002, EurAsia-ICT.

[11]  Frank S. de Boer,et al.  A fully abstract model for the exchange of information in multi-agent systems , 2003, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Gary L. Lilien,et al.  Marketing Models (Маркетинговые модели) , 1992 .

[13]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Identifying and Resolving Conflicts among Agents with Hierarchical Plans , 1999 .

[14]  Finn V. Jensen,et al.  Bayesian Networks and Decision Graphs , 2001, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[15]  Claudette Cayrol,et al.  A Reasoning Model Based on the Production of Acceptable Arguments , 2002, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[16]  Edmund H. Durfee.  Practically Coordinating , 1999, AI Mag..

[17]  John Yen,et al.  Proactive Communications in Agent Teamwork , 2003, Workshop on Agent Communication Languages.

[18]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Multi-issue negotiation under time constraints , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[19]  L. Sonenberg,et al.  Towards a Theory of Negotiation Strategy ( A Preliminary Report ) , 2003 .

[20]  Jeffrey S. Rosenschein,et al.  Rules of Encounter - Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers , 1994 .

[21]  Eithan Ephrati,et al.  Divide and Conquer in Multi-Agent Planning , 1994, AAAI.

[22]  Jeff M. Bickerton,et al.  Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in , 2002 .

[23]  Edmund H. Durfee,et al.  Discovering and exploiting synergy between hierarchical planning agents , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[24]  Michael P. Georgeff,et al.  Communication and interaction in multi-agent planning , 1983, AAAI 1983.