A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATION BASED ON THE - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
A COMPUTATIONAL MODEL OF COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATION BASED ON THE INTERPERSONAL RELATION OF DOMINANCE Presented by : Lydia OULD OUALI [LIMSI-CNRS / UPSUD] Directors : Nicolas Sabouret [LIMSI-CNRS / UPSUD] Charles Rich [CS / WPI]
AlwaysOn Sidner et al 14 Smith et al 10
REA Bickmore et al 02
SimSensei DeVault et al 14 SimCoach Rizzo et al 11
Tardis Sabouret et al 15
2
Alice Glas et al 16 Lea Potdevin 18
[Lewicki et al 11 , Wollkind et al 04]
[Tiedens 03]
Nurses collaborating with MIT Nao Robot Rethink robotics
3
4
5
Personality trait Personality trait DOMINANCE Interpersonal relation Interpersonal relation Social status Social status
6
Personality trait Personality trait DOMINANCE Interpersonal relation Interpersonal relation Social status Social status
7
Personality trait Personality trait DOMINANCE Interpersonal relation Interpersonal relation Social status Social status
8
Personality trait Personality trait DOMINANCE Interpersonal relation Interpersonal relation Social status Social status
[Burgoon & Dunbar 98]
9
kinesic cues [Posture, body movement, gestures, facial expressions] Speech frequency , interruption Initiate interaction and behaviors Communication strategies
High vocal tone and frequency Facial expression
10
Turn taking, interruption, amplitude, disfluencies
[Gebhard et al 14]
visual dominance ratio, gaze
[Gebhard et al 08 ; Bee et al 10] [Bee et al 10]
Posture, body movement, gestures
[Beeet al 10 ; Strassmann et al 16]
11
[Frieze et McHugh 92]
[Ravenet et al 15]
DOMINANT SUBMISSIVE BEHAVIOURS OF DOMINANCE IN NEGOTIATION
Dominance is associated to a high level of demand and a low level of concessions
Dominant individuals are self-centered and only interested in satisfying their own preferences.
Dominant individuals tends to make the first move Control of the flow of the negotiation
12
13
Communication UtteranceSelf Utteranceother Adaptation
Pow Preferences
Decisional model Mental model Pow Preferences Decisional model
Mental model Pow Preferences Decisional model
Pow
14
15
Communication
Pow Preferences
French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
Option = {C1 , C2 , …, Cn} Criterion = {v1 , v2 , …, vn}
Eg : Restaurant = {cuisine, Price, ambiance} Eg : Cuisine = {Indian, French, Italian, …}
Score of satisfaction Sat[v] Inverse of the number of ancestors
16
I like v I don’t like v
UtteranceSelf Utteranceother Share a preference State Preference[X] Ask for a preference Ask Preference[X] Mental model Shared preferences Other’s preferences
17
UtteranceSelf Utteranceother Share a preference State Preference[X] Ask for a preference Ask Preference[X] Mental model Shared Proposals Make a proposal Propose[X] Reject a proposal Reject[X] Accept a proposal Accept[X]
18
BEHAVIOURS OF DOMINANCE IN NEGOTIATION
Dominance is associated to a high level of demand and a low level of concessions
Dominant individuals are self-centered and only interested in satisfying their own preferences.
Dominant individuals tends to make the first move Control of the flow of the negotiation
19
20
French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
21
French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
22
French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
23
French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
t Self[pow,t] τ powa powb
24
French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
25
26
A: "Let's go to a Chinese restaurant." B: "I don't like Chinese restaurants, let's choose something else." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like Italian restaurants?" A: "I don't like Italian restaurants." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "I don't like French restaurants." B: "Do you like Korean restaurants?" A: "Let's go to a cheap restaurant." B: "Okay, let's go to a cheap restaurant." A: "Let's go to a restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to a restaurant on the south side." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to the Shanghai restaurant.“
27
A: "Let's go to a Chinese restaurant." B: "I don't like Chinese restaurants, let's choose something else." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like Italian restaurants?" A: "I don't like Italian restaurants." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "I don't like French restaurants." B: "Do you like Korean restaurants?" A: "Let's go to a cheap restaurant." B: "Okay, let's go to a cheap restaurant." A: "Let's go to a restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to a restaurant on the south side." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to the Shanghai restaurant.“ Pow(A) = 0.9, Pow(B) = 0.4 Agent A Dominant Agent B Submissive
28
Pow(A) = 0.9, Pow(B) = 0.4 Agent A Dominant Agent B Submissive
A: "Let's go to a Chinese restaurant." B: "I don't like Chinese restaurants, let's choose something else." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like Italian restaurants?" A: "I don't like Italian restaurants." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "I don't like French restaurants." B: "Do you like Korean restaurants?" A: "Let's go to a cheap restaurant." B: "Okay, let's go to a cheap restaurant." A: "Let's go to a restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to a restaurant on the south side." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to the Shanghai restaurant.“
29
A: "I don't like French restaurants." B: "Do you like Korean restaurants?" A: "Let's go to a cheap restaurant." B: "Okay, let's go to a cheap restaurant." A: "Let's go to a restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to a restaurant on the south side." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to the Shanghai restaurant.“
Pow(A) = 0.9, Pow(B) = 0.4 Agent A Dominant Agent B Submissive
A: "Let's go to a Chinese restaurant." B: "I don't like Chinese restaurants, let's choose something else." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like Italian restaurants?" A: "I don't like Italian restaurants." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like French restaurants?"
30
Pow(A) = 0.9, Pow(B) = 0.4 Agent A Dominant Agent B Submissive
A: "Let's go to a Chinese restaurant." B: "I don't like Chinese restaurants, let's choose something else." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like Italian restaurants?" A: "I don't like Italian restaurants." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Do you like French restaurants?" A: "I don't like French restaurants." B: "Do you like Korean restaurants?" A: "Let's go to a cheap restaurant." B: "Okay, let's go to a cheap restaurant." A: "Let's go to a restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to a restaurant on the south side." A: "Let's go to the Shanghai. It's a quiet, cheap Chinese restaurant on the south side." B: "Okay, let's go to the Shanghai restaurant.“
31
32
The higher-power agent will more strongly be perceived as self-centered than the lower-power agent The lower-power agent will be more strongly perceived as making larger concessions than the higher-power agent The higher-power agent will more strongly be perceived as demanding than the lower-power agent The higher-power agent will more strongly be perceived as taking the lead in the negotiation than the lower-power agent
33
34
35
36
The higher-power agent will more strongly be perceived as
The lower-power agent will be more strongly perceived as making larger concessions than the higher-power agent The higher-power agent will more strongly be perceived as
The higher-power agent will more strongly be perceived as taking the lead in the negotiation than the lower- power agent
UttSelf Uttother
37
UttSelf Uttother
38
PaParler de l’interfacer
EZ1
39
40
41
Utterance1
UtteranceN
42
Utterance1
UtteranceN
43
SIMULATION THEORY
0.16 0.33 0.66 0.5 0.83 1 French Italian Indian Korean Mexican Japanese Chinese
44
Utt1 Utt2
Dominant Submissive
45
46
Powother True Pow Comparison
0.55 Base line Model MEA RMSE Base line 0.15 0.2 ToM 0.07 0.12
47
48
49
50
Tutorial Use the interface to know the utterances
Information about the preferences
Collaborative negotiation with the agent to choose a restaurant
Questionnaire about the negotiation
51
1 2 3 4 5
Other Self * * *
52
1 2 3 4 5
Other Self
53
1 2 3 4 5
Other Self * * *
54
55
1 2 3 4 5 Comp. Similar Neutral
1 2 3 4 5 Comp. Similar Neutral
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
Compl. Similar Neutral * * *
56
5 10 15 20 25 30
Comp. Similar Neutral * *
57
1 2 3 4 5
Comp. Similar Neutral * *
58
1 2 3 4 5
Comp. Similar Neutral * *
59
1 2 3 4 5
Comp. Similar Neutral * *
60
61
concession, self centeredness
perception
common gain with Complementary agent
the complementary agent
Participants felt significatively more comfortable while negotiating with complementary agent
Participants appreciate significatively more the negotiation with complementary agent
62
Communication UtteranceSelf Utteranceother Complementary Relation
Pow Preferences
Decisional model Mental model Pow Preferences Decisional model
Mental model Pow Preferences Decisional model
Pow
63
64
personality traits and social hierarchy
Influence of interpersonal dominance on argumentation's strategies Evolution of the strategies
negotiation strategies Social conversational agent
65