Agent-mediated Interaction. From Auctions to Negotiation and Argumentation Carles Sierra IIIA-CSIC...

Agent-mediated Interaction. From Auctions to Negotiation

and ArgumentationCarles Sierra

IIIA-CSIC

BarcelonaUtrecht, October 13, 2000

IIIA-CSIC

SIKS-dag 2000, Utrecht, 13/10/00

Talk plan

Auctions: FISHMARKET

Negotiation

Argumentation

Robot navigation

Electronic Institutions

IIIA-CSIC

Introduction

Agents inhabiting the same environment need to co-ordinate their activities to improve their individual or collective performance. The aim of DAI is to design intelligent sistems that behave efficiently.

A common assumption in many applications, specially in AMEC, is that agents are self-interested and utility maximisers. In others, agents are co-operative.

DAI is divided in two big areas: Distributed problem solving, where the designer determines the protocol and the strategy (relation between state and action) of each agent, and Multi Agent Systems, where the agents are provided with an interaction protocol but chose the strategy to follow.

IIIA-CSIC

Auctions

IIIA-CSIC

Auctions

Auctions are mechanisms very frequent in MAS. They have been deeply analysed by economists. There are three types:

1) Of private value, e.g. a cake.

2) Of common value, e.g. treasure bonds.

3) Of correlated value, e.g. contracts.

Protocols:

English. If it is of private value, the strategy is to increase the bids until the reserve price. In those of correlated value the auctioneer may increase the price in predetermined amounts.

Sealed bid. There is no dominant strategy.

Dutch. Equivalent to sealed bid. They are very efficient.

Vickrey. The dominant strategy is to bid for the reserve price.

IIIA-CSIC

Auctions: the Fishmarket

Seller’s admitter

Goods' registerGoods' show andauctionCredits and goodsdelivery

Buyers' registerSellers' settlementsBO

bmsmauctsaba

IIIA-CSIC

Auctions

IIIA-CSIC

Buyer and Electronic Panel

IIIA-CSIC

Scenes

Goods' registerGoods' show andauctionCredits and goodsdelivery

Buyers' registerSellers' settlementsBO

bmsmauctsaba

IIIA-CSIC

Auction protocol

IIIA-CSIC

eBuyers (browser)

IIIA-CSIC

eBuyers (agent)

IIIA-CSIC

eAuctioneer

IIIA-CSIC

Modems

Interagent comprador

Agent comprador

Interagentvenedor

Agentvenedor

Admissió de compadors

Gestió de compadors

Subhastador

Admissió devenedors

Gestió devenedors

Admissió de peix

AuditorLLotja virtual

Implementation

Servidor

IIIA-CSIC

Para ver esta película, debedisponer de QuickTime™ y de

un descompresor Microsoft Video 1.

Tournaments

IIIA-CSIC

Monitoring

IIIA-CSIC

FM 1.0: A test-bed for Electronic Auctions

• Realistic.Grown out of a complex real world application.

• Multi-user

• Architecturally neutral

• Customizability and repeatibility

• Agent-builder facility (Library of agent templates)

• Monitoring and Analysis facilities

• Market scenarios as tournament scenarios.

IIIA-CSIC

Negotiation

IIIA-CSIC

Bargaining

In bargaining, agents may make deals that are mutually beneficial, but they are in conflict over which deal to chose. Negotiation mechanisms fall mainly on strategic bargaining.

Axiomatic Theory. The desired solutions are not those found in a certain equilibrium, but those that satisfy a set of axioms. Classical axioms are those of Nash: outcome u*=(u1(o*), u2(o*)) must satisfy:

Invariance: The numerical utilities of agents represent ordinal preferences, numerical values don’t matter. Thus, the utility functions must satisfy that for any f linear and increasing: u*(f(o), f(ofail))=f(u*(o, ofail))

Anonimity: Changing the labels of the players does not affect the outcome.

Independence of irrelevat alternatives: if we eliminate some o, but not o*, o* is still the solution.

Pareto eficiency: we cannot give more utility to both players over u*=(u1(o*), u2(o*)).

IIIA-CSIC

Bargaining

Strategic Theory: No axioms on the solution are given, the interaction is modelled as a game. The analysis consists on finding which strategies of the players are in equilibrium. It explains the behaviour of utility maximisers better than the axiomatic theory (where the notion of strategy does not make much sense).

The theory of negotiation is basically here. Without assuming perfect rationality, the computational costs of the deliberation and the potential benefits of bargaining conflict.

AI has many things to say on this task.

IIIA-CSIC

Negotiation

• Commerce is about interaction– Between buyers and sellers at all stages: finding, purchasing, delivery.

• First generation– Passive web query

– Simple interactions: auctions

• Second generation– Rich and flexible interactions

• Negotiation is the key type of interaction– Process by which groups of agents communicate with one another to try and

come to a mutually acceptable agreement on same matter.

– Many forms exist: auctions, contract net, argumentation.

– It is key because agents are autonomous: an acquaintance needs to be convinced to be influenced.

– Negotiation is achieved by making proposals, trading options, offering concessions.

IIIA-CSIC

Negotiation components

• Negotiation objects. Issues of the agreements. Number of them, types of operations on them.

• Negotiation protocols. Rules that govern the interaction: permissible participants, valid actions, negotiation states.

• Agents reasoning model. Decision making apparatus. From simple bidding to complex argumentation.

• Challenges– Trust

– Protocol engineering

– Reasoning models

IIIA-CSIC

Negotiation object example

Real State Agency. Seller b and buyer a.

Issues={Address,Surface,Rooms,Brightness,Price,Garage}

Negotiation thread:

a→ b1tx =[?,140m2,4,Very_Bright,$400K]

b→ a2tx =[#21,60m2,4,Slightly_Bright,$400K]

a→ b3tx =[?,120m2,4,Very_Bright,$400K]

b→ a4tx =[#69,120m2,3,Bright,$600K,true]

a→ b5tx =[#69,120m2,3,Bright,$500K,true]

a↔ b5tX ={ a→b

1tx , b→a2tx , a→b

3tx , b→a4tx , a→b

5tx ,accept}

IIIA-CSIC

Negotiation protocol

345Initial stateFinal state

20Prenegotiation1

Issue protocolIssue protocol

IIIA-CSIC

Negotiation reasoning model

Each agent a negotiates over a number of issues that have a:

1) Delimited range [minj, maxj]

2) Monotonic scoring function Vja: [minj, maxj]-> [0,1]

3) Relative importance, wja

The utility function for an agent a has the following form:

The negotiation protocol consists of an iterative process of offers and counteroffers until a deal is reached.

aV (x) = jaw j

aV ( jx)i≤j≤n∑

IIIA-CSIC

Tactic: Concession

0,50,511 β=0,1β=0,02β=1β=10β=500,50,51

1β=0,1β=0,02β=1β=10β=50/t tmax

α( )t α( )t/t tmax

IIIA-CSIC

Tactic: Imitative

IIIA-CSIC

Tactic: trade-offs Price:2

Quality:5

Price:9.9Quality:1.1

IIIA-CSIC

Trade-off Mechanism (I)

• Trade-off is lowering of utility on some issues and simultaneously demanding more on others.

• Steps: given x (a’s offer) and y (b’s offer)

– (1) Generate all / subset of contracts with the same utility ()

» isoa() = {x | Va(x) = }

– (2) selection of a contract (x´) that agent a believes is most preferable by b.

» Ba (Ub(x´) > Ub(x))

» Ua(x´) + Ub(x´) > Ua(x) + Ub(x) (maximization of joint utility)

» Ua(x) = Ub(x´)

• Step (2) is an uncertain evaluation: must model Ba

IIIA-CSIC

Fuzzy Similarity

• Select a contract from isoa() = {x | Va(x) = } that is “closest” or most similar to y.

• Implications of this choice:

– not the probable choice of the other, but rather, the closeness of two contracts

» Not modeling of others but the domain

– need a logic of degrees of truth (Zadeh) as opposed to binary truth values of true or false

IIIA-CSIC

Definition of Similarity

• Sim( ) defined as:

Sim(x,y) = j J

wj Simj(xj,yj)

Simj(xj,yj) = 1i m

(hi(xj) hi(yj))

• where wj is the agent´s belief about the importance the other places on each issue in negotiation

• hi( ) is ith comparison criteria function (e.g warmth)

• is the conjunction operator (e.g minimum) is the equivalence operator (e.g 1-| hi(xj)-hi(yj)|)

IIIA-CSIC

An Example of Similarity

• Dcolours{yellow,orange,green,cyan,red,...}

• Similarity of colours according to different perceptive criteria:» Temperature (warm v.s cold colours)

» Luminosity

» Visibility

» Memory

» dynamicity

ht = {(yellow, 0.9), (violet, 0.1), (magenta, 0.1), (green, 0.3), (cyan, 0.2), (red, 0.7),...}

hl = {(yellow, 0.9), (violet, 0.3), (magenta, 0.6), (green, 0.6), (cyan, 0.4), (red, 0.8),...}

hv = {(yellow, 1), (violet, 0.5), (magenta, 0.4), (green, 0.1), (cyan, 1), (red, 0.2),...}

IIIA-CSIC

Similarity of Colours

• Simcolour(yellow, green) =min( 1- |ht(yellow)- ht(green)|,

1-| hl(yellow)- hl(green)|,

1- |hv(yellow)- hv(green)|)= min(0.4,0.7,0.1) = 0.1

• Simcolour(yellow, red) =min( 1- |ht(yellow)- ht(red)|,

1-| hl(yellow)- hl(red)|,

1- |hv(yellow)- hv(red)|)= min(0.8,0.9,0.2) = 0.2

• yellow is more similar to red than to green on these criteria

• sim(yellow,green) and sim(yellow,red)

• simcolour(colour,colour) = 1i m

(hi(xcolour) hi(ycolour))

• i={temperature,luminosity,visibility}

IIIA-CSIC

The Trade-off Algorithm

complexity kn

To be beneficial to the other the preference of the other must match the similarity function

trade-offa(x,y) = arg maxz isoa() {Sim(z,y)}

IIIA-CSIC

Sim()X

sim(x1,y)=((0.4 *1 - (0.9 - 0.01)) + ( 0. 3 * 1 - ( 0.3 - 0.1))) = 0.28sim(x2,y)=((0.3*1 - (0.1 - 0.08)) + ( 0.3 * 1 - ( 0.1 - 0.1))) = 0.59sim(x3,y)=((0.3*1 - (0.4 - 0.08)) + ( 0.4 * 1 -( 0.9 - 0.01))) = 0.25

Ships = 12Price = 50X1X2X3YSpain UKShips = 4Price = 80Quantity = 2Price = 50Quantity = 9Ships = 8Quantity = 6

Ships = 10Price = 55Quantity = 10Ships = 8Quantity = 614812162024W_Ships = 0.3h1(ships)1W_Price = 0.4h2(price)708050601246810W_quantity = 0.3h3(quantity)

Tactic: Issue-set manipulation

IIIA-CSIC

CASBA general architecture

IIIA-CSIC

Agent Architectures

IIIA-CSIC

Case-based negotiating agent

IIIA-CSIC

Fuzzy Agent

IIIA-CSIC

GA populations

IIIA-CSIC

GA on negotiating agents

IIIA-CSIC

Argumentation

IIIA-CSIC

Argumentation

• Autonomy leads to negotiation and to argumentation.

• Many problems cannot be solved by a simple offer/counter offer negotiation protocol.

• When arguing, agent offers may include knowledge, information, explanations.

• The dialogue includes critiques on each others proposals.

• Agents must be able to generate arguments as well as rebutting and undercutting other agents’ arguments.

• Which argument to prefer may depend on logical criteria or on social considerations.

• A logically-based approach to building agents seems natural.

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

Hang Picture Hang Mirror

+ + Hang MirrorSS

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

I know agent Bhas a nail

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

+ + Hang Picture

+ + Hang Mirror

OK!!! OK!!!

IIIA-CSIC

Multi-context agents

• Units: Structural entities representing the main components of the architecture.

• Logics: Declarative languages, each with a set of axioms and a number of rules of inference. Each unit has a single logic associated with it.

• Theories: Sets of formulae written in the logic associated with a unit.

• Bridge Rules: Rules of inference which relate formulae in different units.

IIIA-CSIC

planner

undercuttingmodule

rebuttingmodule

resourcemanager

socialmanager

goalmanager

An argumentative agent

IIIA-CSIC

SIKS-dag 2000, Utrecht, 13/10/00 GOAL MANAGERGOAL MANAGER

A module

IIIA-CSIC

DONE: G:goal(X),R:X ==> G:done(X)

ASK: G:goal(X),G:not(done(ask(X))),G:not(done(X)),R:not(X),P:not(plan(X,Z))

==> CU:ask(self/G,self/All,goal(X),[]),G:done(ask(X))

RESOURCE: CU>answer(self/RM,self/G,have(X,Z),[])==> R:X

PLAN: CU>answer(self/_,self/G,goal(Z),P)==> P:plan(Z,P)

MONITOR: G:goal(X),R:not(X),P:plan(X,P) ==> G:monitor(X,Z)

NEW_GOAL: CU>inform(self/_,self/_,newGoal(X),_) ==> G:goal(X)

FREE: R:X,GM:not(goal(X,_)) ==> R:free(X)

FREE2: R>free(X),R>X ==> CU:free(X)

FAILURE_R: R>done(ask(X,Y)) FAILURE_P: P>done(ask(X,Y)) [t1] [t2] ==> GM:fail_R(X,Y) ==> GM:fail_P(X,Y)

Bridge rules

IIIA-CSIC

Robot navigation

IIIA-CSIC

The problem

• Outdoor unknown environment navigation

• Legged robot

• No precise odometry (or very imprecise one)

• No location system (GPS)

• Visual feedback only

• No distance to objects estimation

IIIA-CSIC

Objectives

• Landmark based navigation (robust, animal-like)

With the aim of leading the robot to an initially given

visual target in an unknown environment

• Qualitative navigation (fuzzy distances)

• Map generation (topological, landmark based)

IIIA-CSIC

Robot Architecture

Navigation

System

Vision

System

Robot Camera

Target

informationinf

ormati

actions

Look for target

Identify landmarks

Move to directionbids bids

actions

IIIA-CSIC

Example

Obstacle avoidance

QuickTime™ and aMicrosoft Video 1 decompressorare needed to see this picture.

IIIA-CSIC

Multiagent Navigation System

MM TT RM RE DE

bids and illocutions

information

MM: Map Manager

TT: Target Tracker

RM: Risk Manager

RE: REscuer

DE: Distance Estimator

CO: COmmunicator

IIIA-CSIC

Example

Obstacle avoidance

Topological map

Landmark regions

IIIA-CSIC

“Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or, more formaly, are the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction”

• “The major role of institutions in a society is to reduce uncertainty by establishing a stable (but not necessarily efficient) structure for human interaction”

D.C.North: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge (1990)

IIIA-CSIC

Agent-Mediated Institutions(fundamental elements)

Role. Standardized patterns of behaviour required of all agents playing a part in a given functional relationship.

Agent. The players of the institution. Each agent may take on several roles.

Dialogic Framework. Ontologic elements and communication language (ACL) employed during an agent interaction.

Scene. Agent meetings whose interaction is shaped by a well-defined protocol. Each scene models a particular activity.

Performative Structure. Complex activities composed of multiple scenes specified as connections among scenes.

Normative Rules. Determine both subsequent commitments and constraints on (dialogic) agent actions.

IIIA-CSIC

Performative structure (rationale)

• Complex activities can be specified by establishing relationships among scenes that:

• capture causal dependency among scenes;

• define synchronisation mechanisms involving scenes;

• establish paralellism mechanisms involving scenes;

• define choice points that allow roles leaving a scene to choose which activity to engage in next; and

• establish the role flow policy among scenes.

IIIA-CSIC

Specification tool

IIIA-CSIC

Final words

• The study of interaction becomes a cornerstone for intelligent systems.

• Need for platforms and specification languages to model interaction

• Challenges for negotiation:– Trust

– Protocol standards

– Preference modelling

• Challenges for engineering:– Adaptability and learning

– Mobility

– Open and closed market design

• Collaborators: Juan Antonio Rodriguez, Pablo Noriega, Peyman Faratin, Nick Jennings, Simon Parsons, Jordi Sabater, Noyda Matos, Didac Busquets, Ramon Lopez de Mantaras.

• Papers and software at http://www.iiia.csic.es

Agent-mediated Interaction. From Auctions to Negotiation and Argumentation Carles Sierra IIIA-CSIC...

Documents

IIIa - addi.ehu.es

Supplier Relationship Management Demo - iiia.csic.es · Supplier Relationship Management Demo J. Madrenas, A. Fàbregues, C. Sierra IIIA (CSIC) Barcelona

GOLONGAN IIIA

Reputation in the Academic Worldceur-ws.org/Vol-1578/paper1.pdf · Reputation in the Academic World Nardine Osman Carles Sierra Arti cial Intelligence Research Institute (IIIA-CSIC),

IIIA Campus de la UAB, Bellaterra (IIIA-CSIC)puyol/IAGA/Teoria/Conferencia2003cat.pdf · 2005-09-29 · Intel·ligència Artificial: Ciència, ficció i realitat Eva Armengol, Pere

Collaborative Assessment - CEUR-WS.org - CEUR …ceur-ws.org/Vol-1183/ffmi_paper03.pdf · Collaborative Assessment Patricia Gutierrez IIIA-CSIC Campus de la UAB Barcelona, ... marker/referee

Argumentation and Language Argumentation et langage

Cover Iiia

Farmacia Iiia

A framework for argumentation-based negotiation - IIIA …sierra/articles/1998/Argumentation.pdf · A framework for argumentation-based negotiation Carles Sierra , ... list based

@CSICcat · sobre el llibre Kentukis de Samanta Schweblin Amb la participació dels investigadors Pedro Meseguer (IIIA, CSIC) Javier Segovia (IRI, CSIC-UPC) Més informació a @CSICcat

Presentation iiia

PROTOTIPO!DE!UNAPLATAFORMADE!NEGOCIACIÓN!ONLINE! … · 6& IIIA#CSIC& escenaaotra,&definiendo&las&precondiciones&paraincorporarseaunaescenao& abandonarla.& • Reglas& normativas.En

IIIA-CSIC SBIA02-AMEC Tutorial.. Carles Sierra. 1 Agent-mediated electronic commerce Carles Sierra IIIA-CSIC Barcelona

Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An

Well-Nested Context Unification* - IIIA - CSIC

Chapter-IIIA Classification & Exemptionidtc-icai.s3.amazonaws.com/...IIIA-Classification-and-Exemption.pdf · Chapter-IIIA Classification & Exemption ... reveals the classification

32. Computationally Manageable Combinatorial - IIIA - CSIC

Carlos Iván Chesñevar - servicios.uns.edu.ar · Doctor Vinculado (investigador externo) al Instituto de Investigación en Inteligencia Artificial (IIIA-CSIC), Barcelona, España

ESAW 2004 Extending Electronic Institutions: An Explorer’s Log Pablo Noriega IIIA-CSIC Barcelona