A USER’S COGNITIVE WORKLOAD PERSPECTIVE IN NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEMS: AN EYE-TRACKING EXPERIMENT

Replying to several research calls, I report promising results from an initial experiment which com-pares different negotiation support system approaches concerning their potential to reduce a user’s cognitive workload. Using a novel laboratory-based non-intrusive objective measurement technique which derives the user’s cognitive workload from pupillary responses and eye-movements, I experi-mentally evaluated a standard, a chat-based, and an argumentation-based negotiation support system and found that a higher assistance level of negotiation support systems actually leads to a lower user’s cognitive workload. In more detail, I found that an argumentation-based system which fully automates the generation of the user’s arguments significantly decreases the user’s cognitive workload compared to a standard system. In addition I found that a negotiation support system implementing an additional chat function significantly causes higher cognitive workload for users compared to a standard system

Web-centric systems in support of argumentation, negotiation, and organizatioinal memory

The purpose of this thesis is to propose and demonstrate a new negotiation and argumentation medium. This medium will take advantage of the latest in web technologies while conducting a detailed analysis and design of a prototype web based decision support system to support on-line argumentation, claims, and team decisions. The information obtained from the application will be stored in an ODBC database, to be used as part of the organizational memory. Organization memory will significantly enhance an organizations ability to utilize historical data in conjunction with current decision making requirements. The findings in this study strongly support the strengths of the action-resource based argumentation system (ARBAS) model and indicate that future research and application development would significantly advance the fields of web-based negotiation and argumentation. A web-centric prototype developed during this research can be viewed at HTTP://WWW.CIMNET. NPS. NAVY. MIL/ THESIShttp://archive.org/details/webcentricsystem00vickCaptain, United States ArmyApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Intelligent Human-input-based Blockchain Oracle (IHiBO)

The advent of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) has paved the way for a new paradigm of traceability in all information systems areas. In the context of decision-making processes, however, DLTs are generally used only to trace the end results. In this work we argue that a reasoning system can be put in place for making these decisions, in order to enhance auditability, transparency, and finally to provide explainability. We propose the Intelligent Human-input-based Blockchain Oracle (IHiBO), a cross-chain oracle that enables the execution and traceability of formal argumentation and negotiation processes, involving the intervention of human experts. We take as reference the decision-making processes of fund managements, as trust is of crucial importance in such ``trust services''. The architecture and implementation of IHiBO are based on leveraging two-layer DLTs, smart contracts, argumentation and negotiation in a multi-agent setup. Finally, we provide some experimental results that support our discussion, namely that in the use-case we have considered our methodology can increase trust from principals to trusted services

A formal approach to argumentation in group decision scenarios

Time and space consuming are disadvantages in group meetings but are easily faced in computer systems. Agent based group decision support systems reduce the loss usually associated to group work, turning more relevant the benefits that emerge from group meetings. Better decisions are taken after negotiation through choice and convincement. In this paper, a formal logic programming based system is proposed to represent agent knowledge and reasoning in order to be used in argumentation for decision group taking, supporting meetings where agents participate and communicate

Negotiation in Multi-Agent Systems

In systems composed of multiple autonomous agents, negotiation is a key form of interaction that enables groups of agents to arrive at a mutual agreement regarding some belief, goal or plan, for example. Particularly because the agents are autonomous and cannot be assumed to be benevolent, agents must influence others to convince them to act in certain ways, and negotiation is thus critical for managing such inter-agent dependencies. The process of negotiation may be of many different forms, such as auctions, protocols in the style of the contract net, and argumentation, but it is unclear just how sophisticated the agents or the protocols for interaction must be for successful negotiation in different contexts. All these issues were raised in the panel session on negotiation

Dispute Resolution Using Argumentation-Based Mediation

Mediation is a process, in which both parties agree to resolve their dispute by negotiating over alternative solutions presented by a mediator. In order to construct such solutions, mediation brings more information and knowledge, and, if possible, resources to the negotiation table. The contribution of this paper is the automated mediation machinery which does that. It presents an argumentation-based mediation approach that extends the logic-based approach to argumentation-based negotiation involving BDI agents. The paper describes the mediation algorithm. For comparison it illustrates the method with a case study used in an earlier work. It demonstrates how the computational mediator can deal with realistic situations in which the negotiating agents would otherwise fail due to lack of knowledge and/or resources.Comment: 6 page

Intrusiveness, Trust and Argumentation: Using Automated Negotiation to Inhibit the Transmission of Disruptive Information

The question of how to promote the growth and diffusion of information has been extensively addressed by a wide research community. A common assumption underpinning most studies is that the information to be transmitted is useful and of high quality. In this paper, we endorse a complementary perspective. We investigate how the growth and diffusion of high quality information can be managed and maximized by preventing, dampening and minimizing the diffusion of low quality, unwanted information. To this end, we focus on the conflict between pervasive computing environments and the joint activities undertaken in parallel local social contexts. When technologies for distributed activities (e.g. mobile technology) develop, both artifacts and services that enable people to participate in non-local contexts are likely to intrude on local situations. As a mechanism for minimizing the intrusion of the technology, we develop a computational model of argumentation-based negotiation among autonomous agents. A key component in the model is played by trust: what arguments are used and how they are evaluated depend on how trustworthy the agents judge one another. To gain an insight into the implications of the model, we conduct a number of virtual experiments. Results enable us to explore how intrusiveness is affected by trust, the negotiation network and the agents' abilities of conducting argumentation

A negotiation protocol to support agent argumentation and ontology interoperability in MAS-based virtual enterprises

The virtual enterprise (VE), which is formed according to some business opportunities through the collaboration of supply chain partners, is an effective way of business operation in the dynamic global market. This paper proposes an automated negotiation protocol for multi-agent system (MAS) based virtual enterprises. Firstly, to facilitate the functional integration of VEs, a MAS framework is developed to represent the whole life cycle of VEs. Secondly, a negotiation protocol supporting agent argumentation and ontology interoperability between agents is designed to handle the one-to-many negotiation scenarios in the VE context. The negotiation ontology is defined to combine the negotiation domain knowledge. Meanwhile, the ontology interoperability and agent argumentation mechanism is illustrated to ensure agents' mutual understandings. Finally, the proposed MAS framework is implemented upon the JADE platform. Simulation experiments are carried out to verify the agent interaction sequences in the negotiation protocol. © 2010 IEEE.published_or_final_versionThe 7th International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG 2010), Las Vegas, NV., 12-14 April 2010. In Proceedings of the 7th ITNG, 2010, p. 448-45

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