Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems

ArgMAS 2005: Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems pp 138–153Cite as

A Protocol for Arguing About Rejections in Negotiation

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4049))

Abstract

One form of argument-based negotiation is when agents argue about why an offer was rejected. If an agent can state a reason for a rejection of an offer, the negotiation process may become more efficient since the other agent can take this reason into account when making new offers. Also, if a reason for rejection can be disputed, the negotiation process may be of higher quality since flawed reasons may be revised as a result. This paper presents a formal protocol for negotiation in which reasons can be asked and given for rejections and in which agents can try to persuade each other that a reason is or is not acceptable. The protocol is modelled as a persuasion dialogue game embedded in a negotiation protocol. It has a social semantics since the protocol does not refer to the internal state of negotiating agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S., Jennings, N., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18, 343–375 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh, M.: Agent communication languages: rethinking the principles. IEEE Computer 31, 40–47 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 338–342 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wooldridge, M., Parsons, S.: Languages for negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 393–400 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. Journal of Logic and Computation 15 (to appear, 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Prakken, H.: On dialogue systems with speech acts, arguments, and counterarguments. In: Brewka, G., Moniz Pereira, L., Ojeda-Aciego, M., de Guzmán, I.P. (eds.) JELIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1919, pp. 224–238. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Walton, D., Krabbe, E.: Commitment in Dialogue. Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M., Amgoud, L.: Properties and complexity of some formal inter-agent dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 13, 347–376 (2003)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Prakken, H., Vreeswijk, G.: Logics for defeasible argumentation. In: Gabbay, D., Günthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, 2nd edn., vol. 4, pp. 219–318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Prakken, H., Sartor, G.: Argument-based extended logic programming with defeasible priorities. Journal of Applied Non-classical Logics 7, 25–75 (1997)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Amgoud, L., Cayrol, C.: A model of reasoning based on the production of acceptable argument. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 34, 197–216 (2002)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Pollock, J.: Cognitive Carpentry. A Blueprint for How to Build a Person. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dung, P.: Logic programming as dialog game. Unpublished paper, Division of Computer Science, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mackenzie, J.: Question-begging in non-cumulative systems. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 117–133 (1979)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 315–343 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A.: Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104, 1–69 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8, 261–292 (1998)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., Walton, D.: Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law 12, 125–165 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Tilburg University, The Netherlands

    Jelle van Veenen

  2. Department of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

  3. Centre for Law & ICT, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

    Henry Prakken

Authors
  1. Jelle van Veenen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry Prakken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer & Information Science Brooklyn College, City University of New York, 2900 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, 11210, NY, USA

    Simon Parsons

  2. LAMSADE, Université Paris-Dauphine, 75775, Paris Cedex 16, France

    Nicolas Maudet

  3. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Paris Descartes University,, 45, rue des Saints-Pères, 75270, Paris Cedex 06, France

    Pavlos Moraitis

  4. Faculty of Informatics, British University in Dubai, P.O. Box 502216, Dubau, United Arab Emirates

    Iyad Rahwan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

van Veenen, J., Prakken, H. (2006). A Protocol for Arguing About Rejections in Negotiation. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds) Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. ArgMAS 2005. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4049. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36355-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36356-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation