Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Protocol for Argumentation-Based Persuasive Negotiation Dialogues

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Book cover Intelligent Systems (BRACIS 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13073))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Argumentation-based persuasive negotiation is a form of negotiation dialogue in which agents, with different interests and goals, exchange proposals that are supported by rhetorical arguments such as threats, rewards, or appeals. Besides rhetorical arguments, additional kinds of illocutions may also be exchanged during the dialogue, for instance, agents may ask for explanations, give explanations, or attack (or contradict) previous arguments. This paper presents a formal protocol for argumentation-based persuasive negotiation dialogues in which a proponent agent tries to persuade his opponent to perform a given action and the opponent tries to maintain his position. The protocol is modelled as a dialogue game (i.e. the interactions between the proponent and the opponent are governed by a set of rules) and the outcome of the dialogue is determined by applying an argumentation semantics. We prove the soundness and completeness of our proposal and illustrate the proposed protocol by using an example.

Supported by CAPES.

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

Access this chapter

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 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A literal is either an atomic formula or the negation of an atomic formula. When a literal is an atomic formula, we say that it is a positive literal, and when a literal is the negation of an atomic formula, we say it is a negative literal.

  2. 2.

    Minimal means that there is no such that and consistent means that it is not the case that and , for any h [15].

References

  1. Aknine, S., Pinson, S., Shakun, M.F.: An extended multi-agent negotiation protocol. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 8(1), 5–45 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amgoud, L., Ben-Naim, J.: Ranking-based semantics for argumentation frameworks. In: Liu, W., Subrahmanian, V.S., Wijsen, J. (eds.) SUM 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8078, pp. 134–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Amgoud, L., Parsons, S., Maudet, N.: Arguments, dialogue, and negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 10, pp. 338–342. IOS Press (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Threat, reward and explanatory arguments: generation and evaluation. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, pp. 73–76 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Formal handling of threats and rewards in a negotiation dialogue. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 529–536. ACM (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Handling threats, rewards, and explanatory arguments in a unified setting. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 20(12), 1195–1218 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Formal handling of threats and rewards in a negotiation dialogue. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 88–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_6

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Belardinelli, F., Grossi, D., Maudet, N.: A formal analysis of dialogues on infinite argumentation frameworks. In: 24th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-15), pp. 861–867 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Chaib-draa, B.: Specifying and implementing a persuasion dialogue game using commitments and arguments. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 130–148. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32261-0_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Boella, G., Hulstijn, J., Van der Torre, L.: Persuasion strategies in dialogue. In: Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA 2004), Valencia (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Calvaresi, D., et al.: Multi-agent systems’ negotiation protocols for cyber-physical systems: results from a systematic literature review. In: ICAART (1), pp. 224–235 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Advances in argumentation based negotiation. In: Negotiation and Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Fundamentals, Theories, Systems and Applications, pp. 82–125 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77(2), 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Heras Barberá, S.M., Botti Navarro, V.J., Julian Inglada, V.J.: Case-based argumentation framework. Dialogue protocol (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hunter, A.: Base logics in argumentation. In: COMMA, pp. 275–286 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ito, T., Klein, M., Hattori, H.: A multi-issue negotiation protocol among agents with nonlinear utility functions. Multiagent Grid Syst. 4(1), 67–83 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Letia, I.A., Vartic, R.: Defeasible protocols in persuasion dialogues. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 359–362. IEEE Computer Society (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  18. McBurney, P., Parsons, S.: Dialogue games for agent argumentation. In: Simari, G., Rahwan, I. (eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 261–280. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_13

  19. Modgil, S., Prakken, H.: The ASPIC+ framework for structured argumentation: a tutorial. Argument Comput. 5(1), 31–62 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morveli-Espinoza, M.: Persuasive negotiation dialogues using rhetorical arguments. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, AAMAS 2017, pp. 1845–1846. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Morveli-Espinoza, M., Nieves, J.C., Tacla, C.A.: Measuring the strength of threats, rewards, and appeals in persuasive negotiation dialogues. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 35, 1–27 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Morveli Espinoza, M., Possebom, A.T., Tacla, C.A.: On the calculation of the strength of threats. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 62(4), 1511–1538 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-019-01399-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perrussel, L., Doutre, S., Thévenin, J.-M., McBurney, P.: A persuasion dialog for gaining access to information. In: Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946, pp. 63–79. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78915-4_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Prakken, H.: Coherence and flexibility in dialogue games for argumentation. J. Logic Comput. 15(6), 1009–1040 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  25. Prakken, H.: Models of persuasion dialogue. In: Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 281–300. Springer, Boston (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_14

  26. Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 18(04), 343–375 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., Sierra, C.: Persuasive negotiation for autonomous agents: a rhetorical approach (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Saha, S., Sen, S.: An efficient protocol for negotiation over multiple indivisible resources. In: IJCAI, vol. 7, pp. 1494–1499 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Noriega, P., Parsons, S.: A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Singh, M.P., Rao, A., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) ATAL 1997. LNCS, vol. 1365, pp. 177–192. Springer, Heidelberg (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0026758

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. van Veenen, J., Prakken, H.: A protocol for arguing about rejections in negotiation. In: Parsons, S., Maudet, N., Moraitis, P., Rahwan, I. (eds.) ArgMAS 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4049, pp. 138–153. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11794578_9

    Chapter  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang, G., Wong, T., Wang, X.: A negotiation protocol to support agent argumentation and ontology interoperability in MAS-based virtual enterprises. In: 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), pp. 448–453. IEEE (2010)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Electrical and Computer Engineering (CPGEI), Federal University of Technology of Parana (UTFPR), Curitiba, Brazil

    Mariela Morveli-Espinoza & Cesar Augusto Tacla

  2. Paraná Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology (IFPR), Paranavai, Brazil

    Ayslan Possebom

Authors
  1. Mariela Morveli-Espinoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ayslan Possebom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cesar Augusto Tacla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mariela Morveli-Espinoza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal de Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil

    André Britto

  2. Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Karina Valdivia Delgado

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Morveli-Espinoza, M., Possebom, A., Tacla, C.A. (2021). A Protocol for Argumentation-Based Persuasive Negotiation Dialogues. In: Britto, A., Valdivia Delgado, K. (eds) Intelligent Systems. BRACIS 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13073. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91702-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91702-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91701-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91702-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation