Strategies in Case-Based Argumentation-Based Negotiation: An Application for the Tourism Domain

[EN] Negotiation is a key solution to find an agreement between conflicting parties especially during the purchase journey. This paper treats the negotiations between a travel agency and its customers in the domain of tourism. Both automated negotiation and argumentation are gathered to create a framework for automated agents, presenting a travel agency and its customers, to negotiate a trip and exchange arguments. Agents take advantage of their past experiences and use Case-Based Reasoning to select the best strategy to follow. We represent agents using two types of profiles, Argumentative profile that represents agents¿ ways of reasoning and Preference profile that embodies customers¿ preferences in the domain of tourism.Bouslama, R.; Jordán, J.; Heras, S.; Amor, NB. (2020). Strategies in Case-Based Argumentation-Based Negotiation: An Application for the Tourism Domain. Springer. 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51999-5_17S205217Aamodt, A., Plaza, E.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI Commun. 7(1), 39–59 (1994)Adnan, M.H.M., Hassan, M.F., Aziz, I., Paputungan, I.V.: Protocols for agent-based autonomous negotiations: a review. In: ICCOINS, pp. 622–626. IEEE (2016)Amgoud, L., Parsons, S.: Agent dialogues with conflicting preferences. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 190–205. Springer, Heidelberg (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45448-9_14Amgoud, L., Prade, H.: Generation and evaluation of different types of arguments in negotiation. In: NMR, pp. 10–15 (2004)Bouslama, R., Ayachi, R., Ben Amor, N.: A new generic framework for argumentation-based negotiation using case-based reasoning. In: Medina, J., et al. (eds.) IPMU 2018. CCIS, vol. 854, pp. 633–644. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91476-3_52Bouslama, R., Ayachi, R., Ben Amor, N.: A new generic framework for mediated multilateral argumentation-based negotiation using case-based reasoning. In: Kern-Isberner, G., Ognjanović, Z. (eds.) ECSQARU 2019. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 11726, pp. 14–26. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29765-7_2Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Advances in argumentation based negotiation. In: Negotiation and Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: Fundamentals, Theories, Systems and Applications, pp. 82–125 (2014)Hadidi, N., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Tactics and concessions for argumentation-based negotiation. In: Computational Models of Argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2012, vol. 245, pp. 285–296 (2012)Hadoux, E., Hunter, A.: Strategic sequences of arguments for persuasion using decision trees. In: AAAI (2017)Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V.: Argue to agree: a case-based argumentation approach. IJAR 54(1), 82–108 (2013)Heras, S., Jordán, J., Botti, V., Julián, V.: Case-based strategies for argumentation dialogues in agent societies. Inf. Sci. 223, 1–30 (2013)Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Int. J. Group Decis. Negot. 10(2), 199–215 (2001)Lazar, C.M.: Internet-an aid for e-tourism. Ecoforum J. 8(1), 1–4 (2019)Lopes, F., Novais, A.Q., Coelho, H.: Bilateral negotiation in a multi-agent energy market. In: Huang, D.-S., Jo, K.-H., Lee, H.-H., Kang, H.-J., Bevilacqua, V. (eds.) ICIC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5754, pp. 655–664. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04070-2_71Park, S., Tussyadiah, I., Mazanec, J., Fesenmaier, D.: Travel personae of american pleasure travelers: a network analysis. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 27, 797–811 (2010)Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., Mcburney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. KER 18(4), 343–375 (2003)Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., McBurney, P.: Bargaining and argument-based negotiation: some preliminary comparisons. In: Rahwan, I., Moraïtis, P., Reed, C. (eds.) ArgMAS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3366, pp. 176–191. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32261-0_12Sierra, 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/BFb0026758Soh, L.K., Tsatsoulis, C.: Agent-based argumentative negotiations with case-based reasoning. In: AAAI Fall Symposium Series on Negotiation Methods for Autonomous Cooperative Systems, pp. 16–25 (2001)Sycara, K.P.: Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory Decis. 28(3), 203–242 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00162699Walton, D.: Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Routledge, Abingdon (2013

KEMNAD: A Knowledge Engineering Methodology for Negotiating Agent Development

Automated negotiation is widely applied in various domains. However, the development of such systems is a complex knowledge and software engineering task. So, a methodology there will be helpful. Unfortunately, none of existing methodologies can offer sufficient, detailed support for such system development. To remove this limitation, this paper develops a new methodology made up of: (1) a generic framework (architectural pattern) for the main task, and (2) a library of modular and reusable design pattern (templates) of subtasks. Thus, it is much easier to build a negotiating agent by assembling these standardised components rather than reinventing the wheel each time. Moreover, since these patterns are identified from a wide variety of existing negotiating agents(especially high impact ones), they can also improve the quality of the final systems developed. In addition, our methodology reveals what types of domain knowledge need to be input into the negotiating agents. This in turn provides a basis for developing techniques to acquire the domain knowledge from human users. This is important because negotiation agents act faithfully on the behalf of their human users and thus the relevant domain knowledge must be acquired from the human users. Finally, our methodology is validated with one high impact system

SOLACE: A framework for electronic negotiations

Copyright @ 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbHMost existing frameworks for electronic negotiations today are tied to specific negotiation systems for which they were developed, preventing them from being applied to other negotiation scenarios. Thus, the evaluation of electronic negotiation systems is difficult as each one is based on a different framework. Additionally, each developer has to design a new framework for any system to be developed, leading to a ‘reinvention of the wheel’. This paper presents SOLACE—a generic framework for multi-issue negotiations, which can be applied to a variety of negotiation scenarios. In contrast with other frameworks for electronic negotiations, SOLACE supports hybrid systems in which the negotiation participants can be humans, agents or a combination of the two. By recognizing the importance of strategies in negotiations and incorporating a time attribute in negotiation proposals, SOLACE enhances existing approaches and provides a foundation for the flexible electronic negotiation systems of the future

Collaborative design : managing task interdependencies and multiple perspectives

This paper focuses on two characteristics of collaborative design with respect to cooperative work: the importance of work interdependencies linked to the nature of design problems; and the fundamental function of design cooperative work arrangement which is the confrontation and combination of perspectives. These two intrinsic characteristics of the design work stress specific cooperative processes: coordination processes in order to manage task interdependencies, establishment of common ground and negotiation mechanisms in order to manage the integration of multiple perspectives in design

Human-Agent Decision-making: Combining Theory and Practice

Extensive work has been conducted both in game theory and logic to model strategic interaction. An important question is whether we can use these theories to design agents for interacting with people? On the one hand, they provide a formal design specification for agent strategies. On the other hand, people do not necessarily adhere to playing in accordance with these strategies, and their behavior is affected by a multitude of social and psychological factors. In this paper we will consider the question of whether strategies implied by theories of strategic behavior can be used by automated agents that interact proficiently with people. We will focus on automated agents that we built that need to interact with people in two negotiation settings: bargaining and deliberation. For bargaining we will study game-theory based equilibrium agents and for argumentation we will discuss logic-based argumentation theory. We will also consider security games and persuasion games and will discuss the benefits of using equilibrium based agents.Comment: In Proceedings TARK 2015, arXiv:1606.0729

Arguing and negotiating in the presence of social influences

Postprin