Characterizing the Outcomes of Argumentation-based Integrative Negotiation

Young businessman holding a marker and writing pros and cons comparison concept for weigh all arguments. Isolated on white background.
Young businessman holding a marker and writing pros and cons comparison concept for weigh all arguments. Isolated on white background.

Characterizing the Outcomes of Argumentation-based Integrative Negotiation

Yannis Dimopoulos1 Pavlos Moraitis2 Leila Amgoud3
1 University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos Str. 1678, Nicosia-Cyprus
2 Paris Descartes University, 45 rue des Saints-Peres 75270, Paris-France `
3 Paul Sabatier University, 118 route de Narbonne 31062, Toulouse-France

Abstract

In the negotiation literature we find two relatively distinct
types of negotiation. The two types are known as integrative
negotiations and distributive negotiations. Integrative
negotiations are those where all sides are looking for
solutions that are ”good” for everyone while distributive
negotiations are those where each party tries to maximize
his gain. In this paper we are interested in argumentationbased
integrative negotiations. More precisely we present
a study characterizing the outcomes of such negotiations.
For this reason, we aggregate the argumentation systems
that the agents use in order to negotiate. The aggregate
argumentation system represents the negotiation theory of
the agents as a group and corresponds to the ”ideal” situation
of having access to complete information or negotiating
through a mediator. We show that the aggregation operator
we use is very suitable for capturing the essence of integrative
negotiation as the outcomes of the aggregate theory we
obtain have many appealing properties (e.g. they are Pareto
optimal solutions).

Introduction

Negotiation is an important issue in multi-agent systems
(MAS) field. Different approaches to automated negotiation
have been investigated in MAS [7], including gametheoretic
approaches [10], heuristic-based approaches [7],
and argumentation-based approaches (see e.g. [9])
In the ”classical” negotiation literature we find two relatively
distinct types of negotiation. The two types are
known as integrative negotiations and distributive negotiations
[6]. Integrative negotiations are those where all sides
are looking for a solution that allows everyone to walk away
feeling like they won something. Distributive negotiations,
on the other hand, are typically those where one party gets
what he wants while the other party gives something up

Characterizing the Outcomes of Argumentation-based Integrative Negotiation

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Tu dirección de correo no será publicada.


*


Google Analytics