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...

Abstract not found

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.

We present a logic-based formalism for modeling of dialogues between intelligent and autonomous software agents, building on a theory of abstract dialogue games which we present. The formalism enables representation of complex dialogues as sequences of moves in a combination of dialogue games, and allows dialogues to be embedded inside one another. The formalism is computational and its modular nature enables dierent types of dialogues to be represented.

Abstract—This paper surveys and analyzes the state of the art of agent-mediated electronic commerce (e-commerce), concentrating particularly on the business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) aspects. From the consumer buying behavior perspective, agents are being used in the following activities: need identification, product brokering, buyer coalition formation, merchant brokering, and negotiation. The roles of agents in B2B e-commerce are discussed through the business-to-business transaction model that identifies agents as being employed in partnership formation, brokering, and negotiation. Having identified the roles for agents in B2C and B2B e-commerce, some of the key underpinning technologies of this vision are highlighted. Finally, we conclude by discussing the future directions and potential impediments to the wide-scale adoption of agent-mediated e-commerce. Index Terms—Agent-mediated electronic commerce, intelligent agents. 1

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.

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

Designers of agent communications protocols are increasingly using formal dialogue games, adopted from argumentation theory, as the basis for structured agent interactions. We propose a set of desiderata for such protocols, drawing on recent research in agent interaction, on recent criteria for assessment of automated auction mechanisms and on elements of argumentation theory and political science. We then assess several recent dialogue game protocols against our desiderata, revealing that each protocol has serious weaknesses. For comparison, we also assess the FIPA Agent Communications Language (ACL), thereby showing FIPA ACL to have limited applicability to dialogues not involving purchase negotiations. We conclude with a suggested checklist for designers of dialogue game protocols for agent interactions.

Negotiation is essential in settings where autonomous agents have conflicting interests and a desire to cooperate. For this reason, 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. However, a growing body of research is now emerging which points out limitations in such mechanisms and advocates the idea that agents can increase the likelihood and quality of an agreement by exchanging arguments which influence each others ’ states. This community further argues that argument exchange is sometimes essential when various assumptions about agent rationality cannot be satisfied. To this end, in this article, we identify the main research motivations and ambitions behind work in the field. We then provide a conceptual framework through which we outline the core elements and features required by agents engaged in argumentation-based negotiation, as well as the environment that hosts these agents. For each of these elements, we survey and evaluate existing proposed techniques in the literature and highlight the major challenges that need to be addressed if argument-based negotiation research is to reach its full potential.

A component-based generic agent architecture for multi-attribute (integrative) negotiation is introduced and its application is described in a prototype system for negotiation about cars, developed in co-operation with, among others, Dutch Telecom KPN. The approach can be characterised as co-operative one-toone multi-criteria negotiation in which the privacy of both parties is protected as much as possible. 1