Home |  DEUTSCH |  Contact |  Imprint |  Data Protection |  Login |  KIT

Incollection3048

Aus Aifbportal

Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche


A Comparative Study of Argumentation- and Proposal-Based Negotiation




Veröffentlicht: 2009
Herausgeber: Takayuki Ito, Minjie Zhang, Valentin Robu, Shaheen Fatima, Tokuro Matsuo
Buchtitel: Advances in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN 2008)
Ausgabe: 233
Reihe: Studies in Computational Intelligence
Verlag: Springer
BibTeX

Kurzfassung
Recently, argumentation-based negotiation has been proposed as an alternative to classical mechanism design. The main advantage of argumentation-based negotiation is that it allows agents to exchange complex justification positions rather than just simple proposals. Its proponents maintain that this property of argumentation protocols can lead to faster and beneficial agreements when used for complex multiagent negotiation. In this paper, we present an empirical comparison of argumentation-based negotiation to proposal-based negotiation in a strategic two-player scenario, using a game-theoretic solution as a benchmark, which requires full knowledge of the stage games. Our experiments show that in fact the argumentation-based approach outperforms the proposal-based approach with respect to the quality of the agreements found and the overall time to agreement.

Download: Media:Foerst ACAN2008 CSoAaPN.pdf
DOI Link: 10.1007/978-3-642-03190-8_3



Forschungsgruppe

Wissensmanagement


Forschungsgebiet