A logic-based axiomatic model of bargaining

Zhang, Dongmo

doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.08.003

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Part of our future work is focused on studying complexity issues related to our proposal, as done by Zhang (2010) in the context of belief-revision based bargaining and negotiation. Furthermore, we want to identify different kinds of negotiation problems for which either BR or PBR agents are to be preferred, considering the trade-off between negotiation results and computational complexity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A belief revision approach for argumentation-based negotiation agents

Pilotti

Casali

Chesñevar

2015

International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Negotiation is an interaction that happens in multi-agent systems when agents have conflicting objectives and must look for an acceptable agreement. A typical negotiating situation involves two agents that cannot reach their goals by themselves because they do not have some resources they need or they do not know how to use them to reach their goals. Therefore, they must start a negotiation dialogue, taking also into account that they might have incomplete or wrong beliefs about the other agent's goals and resources. This article presents a negotiating agent model based on argumentation, which is used by the agents to reason on how to exchange resources and knowledge in order to achieve their goals. Agents that negotiate have incomplete beliefs about the others, so that the exchange of arguments gives them information that makes it possible to update their beliefs. 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. In our approach, we will focus on an argumentation-based negotiation model between two cooperative agents. The arguments generation and interpretation process is based on belief change operations (expansions, contractions and revisions), and the selection process is a based on a strategy. This approach is presented through a high-level algorithm implemented in logic programming. We show various theoretical properties associated with this approach, which have been formalized and proved using Coq, a formal proof management system. We also illustrate, through a case study, the applicability of our approach in order to solve a slightly modified version of the well-known home improvement agents problem. Moreover, we present various simulations that allow assessing the impact of belief revision on the negotiation process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A belief revision approach for argumentation-based negotiation agents

Pilotti

Casali

Chesñevar

2015

International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been previous approaches integrating belief revision and negotiation. In [34] and [33] a formal characterization of negotiation from a belief revision perspective are given, but no implementation issues are considered.…”

Section: Discussion Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision1

Casali

Pilotti

Chesñevar

2016

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 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.

show abstract

“…As a powerful tool for modeling strategic interactions, game theory is widely used in many fields such as artificial intelligence [28,30,37]. In game theory, a strategic (normal form or static) game is the basic model of a strategic situation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%