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

Autores
Casali, Ana; Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano; Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
Año de publicación
2016
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
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.
Fil: Casali, Ana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas; Argentina
Fil: Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas; Argentina
Fil: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina
Materia
Argumentation-Based Negotiation
Belief Revision
Collaborative Agents
Communication Strategies
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/48581
Acceder
id CONICETDig_4d85330e0a32649fa97aa4a6da9ee618
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/48581
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revisionCasali, AnaPilotti, Pablo EmilianoChesñevar, Carlos IvánArgumentation-Based NegotiationBelief RevisionCollaborative AgentsCommunication Strategieshttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1The 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.Fil: Casali, Ana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas; ArgentinaFil: Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas; ArgentinaFil: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; ArgentinaIOS Press2016-06info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/48581Casali, Ana; Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano; Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision; IOS Press; Argument & Computation; 7; 2-3; 6-2016; 175-2001946-21661946-2174CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3233/AAC-160012info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://content.iospress.com/articles/argument-and-computation/aac012info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-29T09:35:36Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/48581instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-29 09:35:37.162CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
title Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
spellingShingle Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
Casali, Ana
Argumentation-Based Negotiation
Belief Revision
Collaborative Agents
Communication Strategies
title_short Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
title_full Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
title_fullStr Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
title_full_unstemmed Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
title_sort Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Casali, Ana
Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano
Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
author Casali, Ana
author_facet Casali, Ana
Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano
Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
author_role author
author2 Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano
Chesñevar, Carlos Iván
author2_role author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Argumentation-Based Negotiation
Belief Revision
Collaborative Agents
Communication Strategies
topic Argumentation-Based Negotiation
Belief Revision
Collaborative Agents
Communication Strategies
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.2
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv 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.
Fil: Casali, Ana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas; Argentina
Fil: Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro Internacional Franco Argentino de Ciencias de la Información y de Sistemas; Argentina
Fil: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación. Instituto de Ciencias e Ingeniería de la Computación; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Bahía Blanca; Argentina
description 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.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-06
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/48581
Casali, Ana; Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano; Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision; IOS Press; Argument & Computation; 7; 2-3; 6-2016; 175-200
1946-2166
1946-2174
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/48581
identifier_str_mv Casali, Ana; Pilotti, Pablo Emiliano; Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Assessing communication strategies in argumentation-based negotiation agents equipped with belief revision; IOS Press; Argument & Computation; 7; 2-3; 6-2016; 175-200
1946-2166
1946-2174
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.3233/AAC-160012
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://content.iospress.com/articles/argument-and-computation/aac012
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv IOS Press
publisher.none.fl_str_mv IOS Press
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1844613110928769024
score 13.070432

Publicaciones similares