Abstract
In this paper we focus upon a specific process of knowledge sharing, the meaning negotiation one, in presence of a number of negotiating subjects greater than two. Current approaches of the literature are based upon argumentation techniques, persuasion dialogue and game theory and all of them are specific of the negotiation subject and typically limited to two agents. In this paper we present a formalisation of the problem based upon a specific game, the English Auction, that results independent of the number of involved agents and of the negotiation subject. In our framework, each agent’s viewpoint is denoted by a logical theory. We show that the problem as posed in the framework is decidable, under a very general assumption and that the computational complexity of the algorithm is polynomial in the number of agents and in the number of preferred representations of the agents.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Benameur, H., Chaib-draa, B., Kropf, P.: Multi-item auctions for automatic negotiation. Information and Software Technology 44(5), 291–301 (2002)
Bichler, M.: A roadmap to auction-based negotiation protocols for electronic commerce. In: HICSS 2000: Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Washington, DC, USA, vol. 6, p. 6018. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2000)
Burato, E., Cristani, M.: Contract clause negotiation by game theory. In: ICAIL 2007: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp. 71–80. ACM, New York (2007)
Hamblin, C.L.: Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria 11(2), 130–155 (1971)
Kambe, S.: Bargaining with imperfect commitment. Games and Economic Behavior 28(2), 217–237 (1995)
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.: Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J. Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292 (1998)
Ravenscroft, A., Matheson, M.P.: Developing and evaluating dialogue games for collaborative e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 18(1), 93–101 (2002)
Ravenscroft, A., McAlister, S.: Designing interaction as a dialogue game: Linking socil and conceptual dimensions of the learning process. In: Interactions in Online Education, pp. 73–88. Routledge (2006)
Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)
Walton, D.N.: Deceptive arguments containing persuasive language and persuasive definitions. Argumentation 19(2), 159–186 (2005)
Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press (1995)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Burato, E., Cristani, M. (2009). Learning as Meaning Negotiation: A Model Based on English Auction. In: Håkansson, A., Nguyen, N.T., Hartung, R.L., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds) Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications. KES-AMSTA 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5559. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01665-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01665-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-01664-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-01665-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)