|
 ABSTRACT
Recently argumentation-based approaches to negotiation have become popular [3]. The idea is that if negotiating agents exchange reasons for their proposals and rejections, the negotiation process may become more efficient and the negotiation outcome may be of higher quality. This paper especially focuses on reasons given for rejections of proposals. If an agent explains why he rejects a proposal, the other agent knows which of her future proposals will certainly be rejected so she will not waste effort at such proposals. 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. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to formulate a protocol for negotiation with embedded persuasion dialogues about the reasons for rejecting a proposal. The key idea is that the propositional commitments incurred by the agents in the embedded persuasion dialogue constrain their behaviour in the surrounding negotiation dialogue.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
H. Prakken. Coherence and flexibility in two-person dialogue games for argumentation. Technical report, Institute of Information and Computing Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 2005.
|
| |
3
|
Iyad Rahwan , Sarvapali D. Ramchurn , Nicholas R. Jennings , Peter Mcburney , Simon Parsons , Liz Sonenberg, Argumentation-based negotiation, The Knowledge Engineering Review, v.18 n.4, p.343-375, December 2003
[doi> DOI:10.1017/S0269888904000098]
|
| |
4
|
M. Wooldridge and S. Parsons. Languages for negotiation. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 393--400, 2000.
|
|
Adobe Acrobat
QuickTime
Windows Media Player
Real Player
Pdf
I.2