Managing Social Influences through ArgumentationBased Negotiation

1
Managing Social Influences throughArgumentation-B
ased Negotiation

• Present by Yi Luo

2
Paper in workshop of AAMAS-06

• Fifth International Joint Conference on
  AUTONOMOUS AGENTS AND MULTIAGENT SYSTEMS (AAMAS
  2006)
• Workshop Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems
  (ArgMAS)
• Nishan C. Karunatillake1, Nicholas R. Jennings1,
  Iyad Rahwan2, Sarvapali D. Ramchurn1. Managing
  Social Influences through Argumentation-Based
  Negotiation
• School of Electronics and Computer Science,
  University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
• Institute of Informatics, The British University
  in Dubai
• (Fellow) School of Informatics, University of
  Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

3
Background

• internal influences Vs. social influence
• Internal intrinsic motivations
• External role, relationship
• Example a teacher is trying to sell a book to
  his student
• Incomplete knowledge dont know status in
  society
• Conflict between internal and social influence

4
Background

• Argumentation-based negotiation (ABN)
• exchange additional meta-information such as
  justifications, critics, and other forms of
  persuasive language
• gain a wider understanding of the internal and
  external influences

5
Background

• Objective
• Propose a ABN framework allowing agents detect,
  manage and resolve conflicts
• Giving agents the capability to challenge their
  counter parts and obtain the reasons for
  violating social commitment
• simulate to compare the result for agents with
  and without argumentation in the social context

6
Social Argumentation Model

• Social influence schema
• Social Arguments
• language and protocol
• Decision functions

7
Social Argumentation Model Social Influence
Schema

• Social commitment
• x debtor y creditor ? action
• Social commitment is a commitment by agent x to
  another agent y to perform a stipulated action ?
• x attains an obligation toward the y to action ?
• y attains certain right to demand (compensation)
  or require the performance of ?
• relationship encapsulation of social commitments
  between associated roles

8
Social Argumentation Model Social Influence
Schema

• Act (x, student) and RoleOf(student,
  student-teacher-relationship) In (x, student,
  student-teacher-relationship)

9
Social Argumentation Model Social Influence
Schema
10
Social Argumentation Model Social Influence
Schema
11
Social Argumentation Model Social Influence
Schema

• every two agents combined with an action can be
  associated together as a social commitment
• A set of SCs can be associated together as a
  relationship
• Every two roles in the society can have a
  relationship

12
Social Argumentation ModelSocial Arguments

• Socially influencing decision argue about
  validity of reasoning
• Dispute a1 is in role r1, SC is a social
  commitment associated with relationship p
• Rebut agent is also is another role which
  associate another action
• Rebut conflicts between two existing obligations,
  rights and actions
• Negotiating social influence trading
• promise to undertake future obligation
• Promise not to exercise certain right

13
Social Argumentation ModelLanguage and Protocol

• Domain language communication language
  Utterance
• Domain language premise about social context
  conflicts that may face while executing actions
• Communication language elocutionary parties
  OPEN-DIALOGUE, PROPOSE, ACCEPT, REJECT,
  CHALLENGE, ASSERT AND CLOSE-DIALOGUE

14
Social Argumentation ModelLanguage and Protocol

• Protocol
• Opening
• Conflict recognition initial interaction, bring
  the conflict in surface
• Conflict diagnosis establish root cause of the
  conflict
• Conflict management allows agents to argue
  addressing the cause of this conflict
• Agreement mutually acceptable solution or
  agreeing to disagree
• Closing

15
Social Argumentation Model Decision Making
Functionality
16
Social Argumentation Model Decision Making
Functionality

• Challenge the rejection / end negotiation /
  forward an alternative proposal
• Generating a proposal
• If it is capable of performing the reward
• If the benefit it gains from the request is
  greater than the cost of reward
• Evaluating a proposal
• if it is capable of performing the request
• The benefit of the reward is greater than the
  cost incerred in performing the request

17
Social Argumentation Model Decision Making
Functionality
18
Argumentation Context

• Scenario task allocation
• Self-interested agents interact to obtain
  services to achieve a given set of actions
• Agent has
• A list of actions that is required to achieve
• Capability to perform actions

19
Argumentation Context Scenario

• Capability type level
• Actions time capability type minimum
  capability level reward

20
Argumentation Context modeling Social Influence

• Role-relationship structure
• Associated degree of influence decommitment
  penalty
• Assign roles to actual agents

21
Argumentation Context modeling Social Influence
Agent a0 Obligation to provide - c0 to an
agent acting r1 obliged to pay 400 if
decommitted. - c1 to an agent acting r1 obliged
to pay 100 if decommitted. Rights to demand -
c0 from an agent acting r1 right to demand 200
if decommitted.
22
Argumentation Context modeling Social Influence

• Test how agents use argumentation to manage and
  resolve conflicts created due to incomplete
  knowledge about their social influence
• Provide only a subset of the agent-role map
• perfect knowledge (0 missing knowledge)
• Completely unaware of social influence (100
  missing knowledge)

23
Argumentation Context Agent Interaction

• An agent requires a certain capability will
  generate and forward proposals to another agent,
  asking him to sell its service in exchange for a
  certain reward (algorithm 1) propose (do (aj,
  ?j), do (ai, m))
• If the receiving agent perceives this proposal to
  be viable and believes it is capable of
  performing it, then will accept it. Otherwise it
  will reject the proposal (Algorithm 2).

24
Argumentation Context Agent Interaction

• In case of a reject, the original proposing agent
  will attempt to forward a modified proposal. The
  interaction will end either when one of the
  proposals is accepted or when all valid proposals
  that the proposing agent can forward are rejected
  (Algorithm 3).
• agents argue (algorithm 4)
• detect conflicts by analyzing the decommitment
  penalties
• Try to resolve it by exchanging their respective
  justifications
• If there are inconsistencies, social arguments
  are used
• If they are both valid, then each agent would
  point-out alternative justifications via
  asserting missing knowledge
• The defeat-status is computed via a validation
  heuristic, which simulates a defeasible model

25
Argumentation Context Agent Interaction
26
Managing Social Influences

• Demanding compensation
• Right to demand compensation and the right to
  challenge non-performance of social commitment

27
Managing Social Influences
28
Managing Social Influences

• Observation 1 The argumentation strategy allows
  agents to manage their social influences even at
  high uncertainty levels.
• Observation 2 In cases of perfect information
  and complete uncertainty, both strategies perform
  equally.
• Observation 3 At all knowledge levels, the
  argumentation strategy exchanges fewer messages
  than the non-arguing one.

29
Managing Social Influences
30
Managing Social Influences

• Observation 4 When there are more social
  influences within the system, the performance
  benefit of arguing is only significant at high
  levels of knowledge incompleteness.

31
Managing Social Influences

• Questioning non-performance
• Argue-In-First-Rejection and Argue-In-Last-Rejecti
  on
• Observation 5 The effectiveness of the various
  argumentation strategies are broadly similar
• Observation 6 Allowing the agents to challenge
  earlier in the dialogue, significantly increases
  the efficiency of managing social influences.

32
Managing Social Influences
33
Conclusion

• The incomplete knowledge and the diverse
  conflicting influences may prevent agents from
  negotiation
• in order to function as a coherent society,
  agents require a mechanism to manage their social
  influences in a systematic manner.
• Argumentation based approach improve the
  multi-agent system to form an agreement more
  effectively and efficiently.

34
Questions?

• Thank you