An implementation of norm-based agent negotiation

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we develop our previous outline of a multi-agent architecture for regulated information exchange in crime investigations. Interactions about information exchange between agents (representing police officers) are further analysed as negotiation dialogues with embedded persuasion dialogues. An architecture is proposed consisting of two agents, a requesting agent and a responding agent, using a communication language and protocol with which they can interact in order to promote optimal information exchange while respecting the law. Furthermore, the agents' negotiation policies are defined and implemented and an implementation of the agent execution cycle is proposed, which will ultimately enable us to field test our model in order to supply a proof of concept.

REFERENCES

• 1: Peter McBurney , Simon Parsons, Games That Agents Play: A Formal Framework for Dialogues between Autonomous Agents, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, v.11 n.3, p.315-334, Summer 2002 [doi>10.1023/A:1015586128739]
• 2: Pieter Dijkstra , Floris Bex , Henry Prakken , Kees De Vey Mestdagh, Towards a multi-agent system for regulated information exchange in crime investigations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, v.13 n.1, p.133-151, January 2005 [doi>10.1007/s10506-006-9005-1]
• 3: Sylvie Doutre , Peter McBurney , Michael Wooldridge, Law-governed Linda as a semantics for agent dialogue protocols, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 25-29, 2005, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1082473.1082721]
• 4: Phan Minh Dung, On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games, Artificial Intelligence, v.77 n.2, p.321-357, Sept. 1995 [doi>10.1016/0004-3702(94)00041-X]
• 5: Karacapilidis, N. and Moraitis, P. (2002). Engineering issues in inter-agent dialogues. In Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2002), Lyon, France, July 2002: 58--62
• 6: Parsons, S., Sierra, C. and Jennings, N. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8: 261--292.
• 7: Simon Parsons , Michael Wooldridge , Leila Amgoud, An analysis of formal inter-agent dialogues, Proceedings of the first international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems: part 1, July 15-19, 2002, Bologna, Italy [doi>10.1145/544741.544835]
• 8: Henry Prakken, Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation, Journal of Logic and Computation, v.15 n.6, p.1009-1040, December 2005 [doi>10.1093/logcom/exi046]
• 9: Prakken, H. and Vreeswijk, G. (2002). Logical systems for defeasible argumentation. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, second edition, Vol 4: 219--318. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht etc.
• 10: Van Veenen, J. and Prakken, H. (2005). A protocol for arguing about rejections in negotiation. In S. Parsons, N. Maudet, P. Moraitis & I. Rahwan (eds.), Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. Springer Lecture Notes in AI 4049: 138--153.
• 11: Vreeswijk, G. (2006). An algorithm to compute minimally grounded and admissible defence sets in argument systems. In Proceedings of the First International. Conference on Computational Models of Argument, Amsterdam etc., IOS Press: 109--129.
• 12: De Vey Mestdagh, C. N. J. (2003). Administrative Normative Information Transaction Agents (ANITA): Legitimacy and Information Technology, the best of two worlds. In Access to knowledge and its enhancements, Proceedings ToKeN2000 symposium, Delft University of Technology, February 21, 2003.
• 13: Walton, D. and Krabbe, E. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, NY
• 14: Wooldridge, M. and Parsons, S. (2000). Languages for negotiation. Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2000): 393-400. Amsterdam: IOS Press.