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

Law, Politics, and International Governance

The politics of international law are inextricably linked to the issue of governance. In this chapter we approach the central themes of the book by considering this vexed issue, developing four key arguments. First, we define and conceptualise institutions and governance so that any alleged distinction between law and politics becomes untenable or irrelevant. Our claim here directly addresses two of the three questions put forward by Christian Reus-Smit (in chapters 1 and 2) as animating this book: How should we think of international law and international politics? What is the relationship between the two? Our empirical discussion responds to the third question: How does rethinking these categories enable us better to understand contemporary international relations? We agree with Reus-Smit that international law and politics infuse and shape each other, although we understand this relationship somewhat differently. Second, we are concerned with the sources and uses of power in international society. Elaborating on the distinction drawn by Reus-Smit between realist and constructivist approaches, we distinguish normative-ideational power (influence through argumentation and suasion, dear to constructivists) from material-physical power (influence through the manipulation of threats and coercion, emphasised by realists). Third, we develop a relatively abstract model of how institutions emerge and evolve in two kinds of social settings: the dyadic and the triadic. Finally, we illustrate our theoretical ideas with reference to the development of triadic forms of governance in the context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and dyadic in the case of forcible humanitarian intervention

Coalition based approach for shop floor agility – a multiagent approach

Dissertation submitted for a PhD degree in Electrical Engineering, speciality of Robotics and Integrated Manufacturing from the Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências e TecnologiaThis thesis addresses the problem of shop floor agility. In order to cope with the disturbances and uncertainties that characterise the current business scenarios faced by manufacturing companies, the capability of their shop floors needs to be improved quickly, such that these shop floors may be adapted, changed or become easily modifiable (shop floor reengineering). One of the critical elements in any shop floor reengineering process is the way the control/supervision architecture is changed or modified to accommodate for the new processes and equipment. This thesis, therefore, proposes an architecture to support the fast adaptation or changes in the control/supervision architecture. This architecture postulates that manufacturing systems are no more than compositions of modularised manufacturing components whose interactions when aggregated are governed by contractual mechanisms that favour configuration over reprogramming. A multiagent based reference architecture called Coalition Based Approach for Shop floor Agility – CoBASA, was created to support fast adaptation and changes of shop floor control architectures with minimal effort. The coalitions are composed of agentified manufacturing components (modules), whose relationships within the coalitions are governed by contracts that are configured whenever a coalition is established. Creating and changing a coalition do not involve programming effort because it only requires changes to the contract that regulates it

Supporting Negotiations: Methods, Techniques, and Practice

The family of decision analysis techniques can be applied effectively to support practical negotiators in international settings. These techniques are most appropriate in support of the prenegotiation phase, when parties are diagnosing the situation, assessing their own plans and strategies, and evaluating likely reactions and outcomes. The paper identifies how these approaches have and can be used to assist negotiation practitioners, offer a rationale for the application of decision analytic approaches in terms of the particular analytical requirements of the prenegotiation period, suggests how these process-oriented tools can be integrated with substantive tools, and discusses ways in which these tools can be presented and delivered to practitioners in a practical and confidence-building manner

Addressing stability issues in mediated complex contract negotiations for constraint-based, non-monotonic utility spaces

Negotiating contracts with multiple interdependent issues may yield non- monotonic, highly uncorrelated preference spaces for the participating agents. These scenarios are specially challenging because the complexity of the agents’ utility functions makes traditional negotiation mechanisms not applicable. There is a number of recent research lines addressing complex negotiations in uncorrelated utility spaces. However, most of them focus on overcoming the problems imposed by the complexity of the scenario, without analyzing the potential consequences of the strategic behavior of the negotiating agents in the models they propose. Analyzing the dynamics of the negotiation process when agents with different strategies interact is necessary to apply these models to real, competitive environments. Specially problematic are high price of anarchy situations, which imply that individual rationality drives the agents towards strategies which yield low individual and social welfares. In scenarios involving highly uncorrelated utility spaces, “low social welfare” usually means that the negotiations fail, and therefore high price of anarchy situations should be avoided in the negotiation mechanisms. In our previous work, we proposed an auction-based negotiation model designed for negotiations about complex contracts when highly uncorrelated, constraint-based utility spaces are involved. This paper performs a strategy analysis of this model, revealing that the approach raises stability concerns, leading to situations with a high (or even infinite) price of anarchy. In addition, a set of techniques to solve this problem are proposed, and an experimental evaluation is performed to validate the adequacy of the proposed approaches to improve the strategic stability of the negotiation process. Finally, incentive-compatibility of the model is studied.Spain. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (grant TIN2008-06739-C04-04