The need for negotiation in multi-agent systems stems from the requirement for agents to solve the problems posed by their interdependence upon one another. Negotiation provides a solution to these problems by giving the agents the means to resolve their conflicting objectives, correct inconsistencies in their knowledge of other agents' world views, and coordinate a joint approach to domain tasks which benefits all the agents concerned. We propose a framework, based upon a system of argumentation, which permits agents to negotiate in order to establish acceptable ways of solving problems. The framework provides a formal model of argumentation-based reasoning and negotiation, details a design philosophy which ensures a clear link between the formal model and its practical instantiation, and describes a case study of this relationship for a particular class of architectures (namely those for belief-desire-intention agents). 1 Introduction An increasing number of software app...

One reason why Distributed AI (DAI) technology has been deployed in relatively few real-size applications is that it lacks a clear and implementable model of cooperative problem solving which specifies how agents should operate and interact in complex, dynamic and unpredictable environments. As a consequence of the experience gained whilst building a number of DAI systems for industrial applications, a new principled model of cooperation has been developed. This model, called Joint Responsibility, has the notion of joint intentions at its core. It specifies pre-conditions which must be attained before collaboration can commence and prescribes how individuals should behave both when joint activity is progressing satisfactorily and also when it runs into difficulty. The theoretical model has been used to guide the implementation of a general-purpose cooperation framework and the qualitative and quantitative benefits of this implementation have been assessed through a series of comparativ...

Abstract. Many autonomous agents operate in domains in which the cooperation of their fellow agents cannot be guaranteed. In such domains negotiation is essential to persuade others of the value of co-operation. This paper describes a general framework for negotiation in which agents exchange proposals backed by arguments which summarise the reasons why the proposals should be accepted. The argumentation is persuasive because the exchanges are able to alter the mental state of the agents involved. The framework is inspired by our work in the domain of business process management and is explained using examples from that domain. Keywords: Automated negotiation, Argumentation, Persuasion. 1

Abstract not found

Logical models of argument formalize commonsense reasoning while taking process and computation seriously. This survey discusses the main ideas which characterize different logical models of argument. It presents the formal features of a few main approaches to the modeling of argumentation. We trace the

In the last few years we have witnessed a surge of business-to-consumer and business-to-business commerce operated on the Internet. However, most current electronic commerce systems are little more than electronic catalogues that allow a user to purchase a product under predetermined and inflexible terms and conditions. We believe that in the next few years we will see a new generation of electronic commerce systems emerge, based on automated negotiation. In this paper, we identify the main parameters on which any automated negotiation depends. To show the applicability of our classification framework, we use it to categorise a representative sample of some of the most prominent negotiation models that exist in the literature.

Sophisticated models of inter-agent communication are making increasing use of intuitive notions of persuasion and negotiation. In this paper, a formal characterisation is provided which not only clearly distinguishes persuasion from negotiation, but also introduces three other dialogue types, and sets all five in a coherent framework. The notion of a dialogue frame is introduced, and is used to explore the dialogue typology and one of its important features, the concept of functional embedding. The approach offers a number of substantial benefits, including (i) the provision of definitions for classes of communicative encounters, (ii) improvements in expressive capability, (iii) facilitating comparison between diverse multi-agent research, and in some cases, (iv) reducing computational cost.

This work presents a formal, logic-based approach to one-to-one agent negotiation, in the context of goal achievement in systems of agents with limited resource availability. The proposed solution is based on agent dialogues as a way, e.g., to request resources and propose resource exchanges. It relies upon agents agreeing solely upon a language for negotiation, while possibly adopting different negotiation policies, each corresponding to an agent variety. Agent dialogues can be connected within sequences, all aimed at achieving an individual agent's goal. Sets of sequences aim at allowing all agents in the system to achieve their goals, and can be used, e.g., to solve the resource reallocation problem. We model dialogues via logic-based dialogue constraints, and propose an execution model to be adopted for the automatic generation of dialogues. We also propose an agent dialogue cycle for the automatic generation of sequences of dialogues. Finally, we identify some desirable properties of dialogues, dialogue sequences and sets of such sequences, and prove/disprove these properties for concrete agent varieties. 1

This paper presents a plan-based architecture for response generation in collaborative consultation dialogues, with emphasis on cases in which the system (consultant) and user (executing agent) disagree. Our work contributes to an overall system for collaborative problem-solving by providing a plan-based framework that captures the Propose-Evaluate-Modify cycle of collaboration, and by allowing the system to initiate subdialogues to negotiate proposed additions to the shared plan and to provide support for its claims. In addition, our system handles in a unified manner the negotiation of proposed domain actions, proposed problem-solving actions, and beliefs proposed by discourse actions. Furthermore, it captures cooperative responses within the collaborative framework and accounts for why questions are sometimes never answered.

We present a formal model of argumentation based on situation calculus which captures both the logical and the procedural aspects of argumentation processes. The logic is used to determine what is accepted by each agent participating in the discussion and by the group as a whole, on the basis of the speech acts performed during argumentation. Argumentation protocols, also called rules of order, describe declaratively which speech acts are legal in a particular state of the argumentation. We first discuss argumentation with fixed rules of order. Our model tolerates protocol violations but makes it possible to object to illegal actions. In realistic settings the rules of order themselves can at any time become the topic of the debate. We show how meta level argumentation of this kind can be modelled in what we call dynamic argument systems. To illustrate the notions introduced in the paper we present a reconstruction of Rescher's theory of formal disputation and a dynamic argument system with three levels which we use to discuss a murder case. 1