Article

On the generation of bipolar goals in argumentation-based negotiation

Authors:

Souhila KaciAuthors Info & Claims

ArgMAS'04: Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

Pages 192 - 207

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32261-0_13

Published: 19 July 2004 Publication History

Abstract

The notion of agent’s goals is crucial in negotiation dialogues. In fact, during a negotiation, each agent tries to make and to accept the offers which satisfy its own goals. Works on negotiation suppose that an agent has a set of fixed goals to pursue. However, it is not shown how these goals are computed and chosen by the agent. Moreover, these works handle one kind of goals: the ones that an agent wants to achieve.

Recent studies on psychology claim that goals are bipolar and there are at least two kinds of goals: the positive goals representing what the agent wants to achieve and the negative goals representing what the agent rejects. In this paper, we present an argumentation-based framework which generates the goals of an agent. The framework returns three categories of goals: the positive goals, the negative ones and finally the goals in abeyance.

References

[1]

L. Amgoud. A formal framework for handling conflicting desires. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning with Uncertainty, ECSQARU'2003, pages 552-563, 2003.

[2]

L. Amgoud, S. Parsons, and N. Maudet. Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI'00), pages 338-342, 2000.

Digital Library

[3]

S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci, and H. Prade. Bipolar representation and fusion of preferences in the possibilistic logic framework. In Proceedings of the eighth International Confenrence on Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'02), pages 158-169, 2002.

[4]

J. Borod. The neuropsychology of emotion. Oxford University Press, 2000.

[5]

J. Cacioppo and G. Bernston. The affect system: Architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 5:133-137, 1999.

[6]

J. Cacioppo, W. Gardner, and G. Bernston. Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 1:3-25, 1997.

[7]

P. M. Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321-357, 1995.

Digital Library

[8]

S. Kaci and H. Prade. Bipolar goals. A possibilistic logic characterization of preferred choices. In Proceedings of Workshop on Local Computation for Logics and Uncertainty, in conjunction with ECAI'04, 2004.

[9]

S. Kraus, K. Sycara, and A. Evenchik. Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation, volume 104. Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 1998.

Digital Library

[10]

X. Luo, N. Jennings, N. Shadbolt, H. fung Leung, and J. H. man Lee. A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. In Artificial Intelligence, 148(1-2), pages 53-102, 2003.

Digital Library

[11]

I. Rahwan, L. Sonenberg, and F. Dignum. Towards interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS'03), pages 773-780, 2003.

Digital Library

[12]

E. Rolls. Precis of "brain and emotion". Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(2):177-234, 2000.

[13]

C. Sierra, N. Jennings, P. Noriega, and S. Parsons. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the fourth Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL'97), pages 167-182, 1997.

Digital Library

[14]

R. Thomason. Desires and defaults: A framework for planning with inferred goals. In Proceedings of the seventh International Confenrence on Principle of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'00), pages 702-713, 2000.

[15]

O. Wong and R. Lau. Possibilistic reasoning for intelligent payment agents. In Proceedings of the second Workshop on AI in Electronic Commerce AIEC, pages 170-180, 2000.

Digital Library

Cited By

Amgoud LDevred CLagasquie-Schiex MPadgham LParkes D(2008)A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoningProceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 110.5555/1402383.1402446(429-436)Online publication date: 12-May-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1402383.1402446
Modgil S(2006)Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation FrameworksProceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 200610.5555/1565233.1565267(297-308)Online publication date: 25-May-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1565233.1565267
Rahwan IAmgoud LNakashima HWellman MWeiss GStone P(2006)An argumentation based approach for practical reasoningProceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems10.1145/1160633.1160696(347-354)Online publication date: 8-May-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1160633.1160696

Recommendations

Towards interest-based negotiation
AAMAS '03: Proceedings of the second international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

Negotiation is essential in settings where agents have conflicting interests and a desire to cooperate. In many approaches, agents are assumed to have pre-set, fixed preferences, and complete awareness of the space of possible outcomes. Such strong ...
Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation
AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems

In this paper, we study how argumentation can be used as a basis for negotiation between autonomous agents, where negotiation strategies of the different parties are represented as argumentation theories within their knowledge. We propose an ...
Characterizing the Outcomes of Argumentation-Based Integrative Negotiation
WI-IAT '08: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Volume 02

In the negotiation literature we find two relatively distinct types of negotiation. The two types are known as integrative negotiations and distributive negotiations. Integrative negotiations are those where all sides are looking for solutions that are "...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

ArgMAS'04: Proceedings of the First international conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

July 2004

262 pages

ISBN:354024526X

Editors:
Iyad Rahwan
Faculty of Informatics, British University in Dubai, Dubau, United Arab Emirates
,
Pavlos Moraïtis
Department of Computer Science, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
,
Chris Reed
Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 19 July 2004

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 14 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Amgoud LDevred CLagasquie-Schiex MPadgham LParkes D(2008)A constrained argumentation system for practical reasoningProceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems - Volume 110.5555/1402383.1402446(429-436)Online publication date: 12-May-2008
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1402383.1402446
Modgil S(2006)Value Based Argumentation in Hierarchical Argumentation FrameworksProceedings of the 2006 conference on Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 200610.5555/1565233.1565267(297-308)Online publication date: 25-May-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1565233.1565267
Rahwan IAmgoud LNakashima HWellman MWeiss GStone P(2006)An argumentation based approach for practical reasoningProceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems10.1145/1160633.1160696(347-354)Online publication date: 8-May-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1160633.1160696

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents