The LOGIC negotiation model

ABSTRACT

Successful negotiators prepare by determining their position along five dimensions: Legitimacy, Options, Goals, Independence, and Commitment, (LOGIC). We introduce a negotiation model based on these dimensions and on two primitive concepts: intimacy (degree of closeness) and balance (degree of fairness). The intimacy is a pair of matrices that evaluate both an agent's contribution to the relationship and its opponent's contribution each from an information view and from a utilitarian view across the five LOGIC dimensions. The balance is the difference between these matrices. A relationship strategy maintains a target intimacy for each relationship that an agent would like the relationship to move towards in future. The negotiation strategy maintains a set of Options that are in-line with the current intimacy level, and then tactics wrap the Options in argumentation with the aim of attaining a successful deal and manipulating the successive negotiation balances towards the target intimacy.

REFERENCES

• 1: Adams, J. S. Inequity in social exchange. In Advances in experimental social psychology, L. Berkowitz, Ed., vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965.
• 2: Arcos, J. L., Esteva, M., Noriega, P., Rodríguez, J. A., and Sierra, C. Environment engineering for multiagent systems. Journal on Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 18 (2005).
• 3: Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G. F., and White, S. B. Reversal of preference in allocation decisions: judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administration Science Quarterly, 37 (1992), 220--240.
• 4: Brandenburger, A., and Nalebuff, B. Co-Opetition: A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation. Doubleday, New York, 1996.
• 5: Cheeseman, P., and Stutz, J. Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering. American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY, USA, 2004, ch. On The Relationship between Bayesian and Maximum Entropy Inference, pp. 445--461.
• 6: John Debenham, Bargaining with Information, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.663-670, July 19-23, 2004, New York, New York [doi>10.1109/AAMAS.2004.73]
• 7: Fischer, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in Penguin Books, 1995.
• 8: Kalfoglou, Y., and Schorlemmer, M. IF-Map: An ontology-mapping method based on information-flow theory. In Journal on Data Semantics I, S. Spaccapietra, S. March, and K. Aberer, Eds., vol. 2800 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2003, pp. 98--127.
• 9: Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., and Minton, J. W. Essentials of Negotiation. McGraw Hill, 2001.
• 10: Li, Y., Bandar, Z. A., and McLean, D. An approach for measuring semantic similarity between words using multiple information sources. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15, 4 (July/August 2003), 871--882.
• 11: David J. C. MacKay, Information Theory, Inference & Learning Algorithms, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2002
• 12: Paris, J. Common sense and maximum entropy. Synthese 117, 1 (1999), 75--93.
• 13: Carles Sierra , John Debenham, An information-based model for trust, Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, July 25-29, 2005, The Netherlands [doi>10.1145/1082473.1082549]
• 14: Carles Sierra , John Debenham, Trust and honour in information-based agency, Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, May 08-12, 2006, Hakodate, Japan [doi>10.1145/1160633.1160855]
• 15: Sierra, C., and Debenham, J. Information-based agency. In Proceedings of Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence IJCAI-07 (Hyderabad, India, January 2007), pp. 1513--1518.
• 16: Sondak, H., Neale, M. A., and Pinkley, R. The negotiated allocations of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 3 (December 1995), 249--260.
• 17: Valley, K. L., Neale, M. A., and Mannix, E. A. Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: The effects of relationships on the process and outcome of negotiations. In Research in Negotiation in Organizations, R. Bies, R. Lewicki, and B. Sheppard, Eds., vol. 5. JAI Press, 1995, pp. 65--94.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.2 ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
        I.2.11 Distributed Artificial Intelligence
            Subjects: Multiagent systems

General Terms:
Theory

Keywords:
multiagent systems, negotiation