IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v23y2014i5d10.1007_s10726-012-9324-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Arguing over Goals for Negotiation: Adopting an Assumption-Based Argumentation Decision Support System

Author

Listed:
  • Maxime Morge

    (Université Lille 1)

  • Paolo Mancarella

    (Largo B. Pontecorvo, 3)

Abstract

Computational models of argumentation has been put forward as a promising approach to support decision making. In this context several recent works have proposed argumentation-based frameworks for decision making. In this paper we describe an application based on an argumentation-based mechanism for decision-making to concede. Adopting the assumption-based approach of argumentation, we propose an argumentation framework in which preferences are attached to goals. Arguments are defined as tree-like structures. Our framework is equipped with a computational counterpart for solving a decision problem, modeling the intuition that high-ranked goals are preferred to low-ranked goals which can be withdrawn. In this way, our framework suggests some decisions and provides an interactive and intelligible explanation of this choice. Our implementation, called MARGO, has been used for service selection within the ArguGRID project. We illustrate our approach with an industrial application, and illustrate the operation of the system with a running example.

Suggested Citation

  • Maxime Morge & Paolo Mancarella, 2014. "Arguing over Goals for Negotiation: Adopting an Assumption-Based Argumentation Decision Support System," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 979-1012, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9324-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-012-9324-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-012-9324-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-012-9324-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maxime Morge & Philippe Mathieu & Paolo Mancarella, 2009. "Assumption-based argumentation for the minimal concession strategy of agents engaged in resource negotiation," Post-Print hal-00732038, HAL.
    2. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    3. Maxime Morge & Paolo Mancarella, 2010. "Assumption-Based Argumentation for the Minimal Concession Strategy," Post-Print hal-00731960, HAL.
    4. Maxime Morge & Bromuri Stefano & Francesca Toni & Jarred Mcginnis & Paolo Mancarella & Kostas Stathis, 2013. "Argumentative Agents for Service-Oriented Computing," Post-Print hal-00826480, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Al-Alawi, Baha M. & Coker, Alexander D., 2018. "Multi-criteria decision support system with negotiation process for vehicle technology selection," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 278-296.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Building an Automated win-win Negotiation Process Model," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 33-46.
    3. David C. Parkes & Jayant Kalagnanam, 2005. "Models for Iterative Multiattribute Procurement Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 435-451, March.
    4. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    5. Juan M. Alberola & Vicent Botti & Jose M. Such, 2014. "Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 163-167, April.
    6. Melvin F. Shakun, 2005. "Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 383-392, September.
    7. Nassiri-Mofakham, Faria & Huhns, Michael N., 2023. "Role of culture in water resources management via sustainable social automated negotiation," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. Arentze, Theo A., 2015. "Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-84.
    9. Eymann, Torsten & Streitberger, Werner & Reinicke, Michael & Freitag, Felix & Chacin, Pablo & Chao, Isaac & Schnizler, Björn & Veit, Daniel, 2007. "Preliminary specification and design documentation for software components to achieve catallaxy in computational systems," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 2, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    10. Shazib E. Shaikh & Nikolay Mehandjiev, 2007. "E-Business Process Negotiation : Formal Requirements for Strategy Support," Microeconomics Working Papers 22278, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4472 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Tiago Pinto & Zita Vale & Isabel Praça & E. J. Solteiro Pires & Fernando Lopes, 2015. "Decision Support for Energy Contracts Negotiation with Game Theory and Adaptive Learning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-26, September.
    13. Khalid Mansour & Ryszard Kowalczyk, 2015. "An Approach to One-to-Many Concurrent Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 45-66, January.
    14. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    15. Przybyła-Kasperek, Małgorzata & Wakulicz-Deja, Alicja, 2016. "The strength of coalition in a dispersed decision support system with negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 947-968.
    16. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    17. Lang, Fabian & Fink, Andreas & Brandt, Tobias, 2016. "Design of automated negotiation mechanisms for decentralized heterogeneous machine scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 192-203.
    18. Wan, Long & Mei, Jiajie & Du, Jiangze, 2021. "Two-agent scheduling of unit processing time jobs to minimize total weighted completion time and total weighted number of tardy jobs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(1), pages 26-35.
    19. Kersten, Gregory E. & Lai, Hsiangchu, 2007. "Satisfiability and completeness of protocols for electronic negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 922-937, July.
    20. P. Ding & M. D. Gerst & G. Bang & M. E. Borsuk, 2015. "An Application of Automated Mediation to International Climate Treaty Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 885-903, September.
    21. Sigifredo Laengle & Nikunja Mohan Modak & Jose M. Merigo & Gustavo Zurita, 2018. "Twenty-Five Years of Group Decision and Negotiation: A Bibliometric Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 505-542, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:5:d:10.1007_s10726-012-9324-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.