Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Related Work
Experimental Evaluation
Conclusions and Future Work
References

Strategic Negotiation and Trust in Diplomacy – The DipBlue Approach

Profile image of Luis Paulo ReisLuis Paulo Reis

2015, Lecture Notes in Computer Science

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27543-7_9
visibility

…

description

21 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

The study of games in Artificial Intelligence has a long tradition. Game playing has been a fertile environment for the development of novel approaches to build intelligent programs. Multi-agent systems (MAS), in particular, are a very useful paradigm in this regard, not only because multi-player games can be addressed using this technology, but most importantly because social aspects of agenthood that have been studied for years by MAS researchers can be applied in the attractive and controlled scenarios that games convey. Diplomacy is a multi-player strategic zero-sum board game, including as main research challenges an enormous search tree, the difficulty of determining the real strength of a position, and the accommodation of negotiation among players. Negotiation abilities bring along other social aspects, such as the need to perform trust reasoning in order to win the game. The majority of existing artificial players (bots) for Diplomacy do not exploit the strategic opportunities enabled by negotiation, focusing instead on search and heuristic approaches. This paper describes the development of DipBlue, an artificial player that uses negotiation in order to gain advantage over its opponents, through the use of peace treaties, formation of alliances and suggestion of actions to allies. A simple trust assessment approach is used as a means to detect and react to potential betrayals by allied players. DipBlue was built to work with DipGame, a MAS testbed for Diplomacy, and has been tested with other players of the same platform and variations of itself. Experimental results show that the use of negotiation increases the performance of bots involved in alliances, when full trust is assumed. In the presence of betrayals, being able to perform trust reasoning is an effective approach to reduce their impact.

Related papers

The Challenge of Negotiation in the Game of Diplomacy
Dave de Jonge

Agreement Technologies, 2019

The game of Diplomacy has been used as a test case for complex automated negotiations for a long time, but to date very few successful negotiation algorithms have been implemented for this game. We have therefore decided to include a Diplomacy tournament within the annual Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC). In this paper we present the setup and the results of the ANAC 2017 Diplomacy Competition and the ANAC 2018 Diplomacy Challenge. We observe that none of the negotiation algorithms submitted to these two editions have been able to significantly improve the performance over a non-negotiating baseline agent. We analyze these algorithms and discuss why it is so hard to write successful negotiation algorithms for Diplomacy. Finally, we provide experimental evidence that, despite these results, coalition formation and coordination do form essential elements of the game.

View PDFchevron_right
Diplomacy and Artificial Intelligence. Reflections on Practical Assistance for Diplomatic Negotiations
Volker Stanzel

2022

∎ AI holds the promise of being able to analyse large amounts of data faster and more reliably than humans can. So is it also possible to use AI systems to analyse information relevant to diplomatic negotiations in a way that adds significant strategic value? ∎ We explore this question through two exploratory case studies. The first examines the negotiations for a German-Austrian customs union in 1929/30. Here we show how AI systems could be used to develop a spectrum of possible scenarios in an automated way for the purposes of strategy formation. ∎ The second case study looks at the negotiations on the so-called “cybercrime” resolution within the framework of the United Nations (UN). In cooperation with the Federal Foreign Office (AA), the study investigates whether and in what form AI systems allow the behaviour of states in the UN General Assembly to be predicted. ∎ Based on the two case studies, we take a systematic look at further possibilities for using AI as a tool for diplo...

View PDFchevron_right
DarkBlade: A Program That Plays Diplomacy
Pedro Mariano

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2009

Diplomacy is a 7-player game that requires coordination between players in order to achieve victory. Its huge search space makes existing search algorithms useless. In this paper we present Darkblade, a player designed as a Multi-Agent System that uses potential fields to calculate moves and evaluate board positions. We tested our player against other recent players. Although there are some limitations, the results are promising.

View PDFchevron_right
On using multi-agent systems in playing board games
Stefan Johansson

Proceedings of the fifth international joint …, 2006

Computer programs able to play different kinds of games (aka bots) is a growing area of interest for the computer game industry as the demand for better skilled computerized opponents increase. We propose a general architecture of a Multi-agent System (Mas) based bot able to play complex board games and show that this solution is able to outperform other bots in two quite different games, namely no-press Diplomacy and Risk. Based on these results, we formulate a hypothesis of the applicability of Mas based bots in the domain of board games and identify the need for future investigations in the area.

View PDFchevron_right
AI Diplomacy
Sinisa Grgic

AI Diplomacy, 2024

AI Diplomacy: Insights and Innovations from the Bilateral Navigator" presents a groundbreaking exploration of how artificial intelligence is fundamentally transforming international relations and diplomatic practice. Drawing on extensive experience in both technological innovation and diplomatic service, this comprehensive work examines the intersection of AI and diplomacy across strategic, operational, and ethical dimensions. The book introduces the Bilateral Navigator—an innovative AI-powered project analyzing relationships between all 193 UN member states—demonstrating how data-driven insights can democratize diplomatic analysis and enhance international cooperation. Through detailed case studies, practical applications, and theoretical frameworks, it addresses critical questions about algorithmic bias, privacy concerns, and the evolving role of human diplomats in an increasingly AI-augmented world. This pioneering work provides diplomats, policymakers, and scholars with both conceptual understanding and actionable strategies for navigating the new landscape of international relations. By balancing technological possibilities with diplomatic wisdom, "AI Diplomacy" offers a vision for how nations can harness AI's potential while preserving the essential human elements that have always defined successful diplomacy.

View PDFchevron_right
SISINE: A Negotiation Training Dedicated Multi-Player Role-Playing Platform Using Artificial Intelligence Skills
Amine Chohra

Studies in Computational Intelligence, 2010

In recent decades, a number of trainers have used role-playing games to teach negotiation skills. The SISINE Project -funded by the EU Leonardo Program -has developed a teaching methodology making it possible to conduct this kind of approaches in a virtual environment. The teaching methodology exploits a specially-developed technology platform allowing a small community of players to communicate, to interact and to play online in order to acquire basic notions and rules about negotiation and how to apply this knowledge. A part of SISINE project has investigated Artificial Intelligence issued techniques in order to evaluate implementation's possibility of computer-controlled "artificial players" embodying some intelligent behaviours. This article presents the first results of those investigations.

View PDFchevron_right
Dialogue Games and Trust for Communicating Agents
Jihad Labban

2008

Multi-agent applications are primarily based on agent interactions, which are constrained by the trust of participating agents. Two important issues in these applications are how agents can communicate in a flexible and efficient way and how an agent can authenticate information conveyed by other agents in the system. In this thesis, we present a new communication framework and trust model addressing these issues by considering three factors. The first factor is about the flexibility, complexity, soundness, and completeness of the communication protocol. The second factor is about the classification of agents from a trust point of view using direct interactions. The third factor is related to the categorization of the agent's chains through which the information is transmitted. Such a categorization is based upon the reliability of the agents in the chain. The model aims to examine all available data in order to determine the trustworthiness of agents as transmitters of informat...

View PDFchevron_right
Evolution of Mutual Trust Protocol in Human-based Multi-Agent Simulation
Hirotaka OSAWA

Advances in Artificial Life, ECAL 2013, 2013

Acquisition of the opponent's model and achieving mutual trust with others are notable traits of humankind's intelligence. Achieving mutual trust is a big challenge for artificial intelligences, and it is a key factor in trading. However, how players observe each others' behaviors and how they achieve mutual trust are not fully known. In this study, we researched the growth of a mutual trust protocol in a trading game in a human-based simulation. We designed and implemented webbased multi-player trading game based on the refusable iterative Anti-Max Prisoner's Dilemma game (rAMPD). In the game, each agent's strategy is described by an automaton and periodically modified by human players. We conducted a longterm human-based evolution of mutual trust using this trading game for approximately one month and observed how the agents' automata changed. Analyses of the high-ranking agents' automata and introspective reports by the human players revealed that the mutual trust protocol is achieved by using the initial trade as a signal for mutual recognition.

View PDFchevron_right
A new quantitative trust model for negotiating agents using argumentation
Jamal Bentahar

2007

The First International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS) aimed at providing an international forum for scientists, researchers, engineers and developers from a wide range of information science areas to exchange ideas and approaches in this evolving field. While presenting research findings and state-of-art solutions, authors were especially invited to share experiences on new research challenges. High quality papers in all information science areas were solicited and original papers exploring research challenges did receive especially careful interest from reviewers. Papers that had already been accepted or were currently under review for other conferences or journals were not to be considered for publications at RCIS'07.

View PDFchevron_right
Negotiation and Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems: Fundamentals, Theories, Systems and Applications
helder coelho

2018

In this chapter we elaborate on the specification and exploitation of a software agent-based Electronic Institution, embedding both a Normative Environment and a Computational Trust service which, when used in tandem, lead to an enhanced process of selection of potential business partners and enable automatic contract negotiation. We introduce a formalization of a Normative Environment, which accommodates the establishment of e-contracts and provides a contract monitoring facility. Contracts are established and enacted by contractual partners previously selected through an automatic negotiation process. While monitoring contracts at run-time, the Normative Environment makes use of a reporting mechanism to inform relevant contract enactment events to interested parties. In our work, we benefit from this reporting function by exploiting it as an input to a computational trust mechanism. We also present the built-in Computational Trust service, a key element of the Electronic Instituti...

View PDFchevron_right

References (21)

  1. Allan B. Calhamer. The Rules of Diplomacy. Avalon Hill, 4th edition, 2000.
  2. Rui Jorge Gregório Deyllot. Diplomacy Base de Dados de Movimentos para Con- trolar Províncias. Master thesis, Universidade de Aveiro, 2010.
  3. Angela Fabregues and Carles Sierra. Diplomacy game: the test bed. PerAda Magazine, towards persuasive adaptation, pages 5-6, 2009.
  4. Angela Fabregues and Carles Sierra. A testbed for multiagent systems (technical report iiia-tr-2009-09). Technical report, IIIA-CSIC, 2009.
  5. Angela Fabregues and Carles Sierra. Dipgame: A challenging negotiation testbed. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 24(7):1137-1146, 2011.
  6. Michael R. Hall and Daniel E. Loeb. Thoughts on programming a diplomat. In H. van den Herik and V. Allis, editors, Heuristic Programming in Artificial Intel- ligence 3, pages 123-145. Chinester, England, Ellis Horwood Limited, 1992.
  7. Eric Hunter. Solo percentages. http://www.diplom.org/Zine/W2003A/Hunter/ Solo-Percentages.html. Accessed: 29-07-2015.
  8. Stefan J. Johansson and Fredrik Håå rd. Tactical coordination in no-press diplo- macy. Proceedings of the fourth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems -AAMAS '05, page 423, 2005.
  9. Dave De Jonge. Optimizing a Diplomacy Bot Using Genetic Algorithms. Master thesis, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2010.
  10. Markus Kemmerling, Niels Ackermann, Nicola Beume, Mike Preuss, Sebastian Uellenbeck, and Wolfgang Walz. Is human-like and well playing contradictory for diplomacy bots? In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computa- tional Intelligence and Games, CIG'09, pages 209-216, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2009. IEEE Press.
  11. Markus Kemmerling, Niels Ackermann, and Mike Preuss. Nested look-ahead evo- lutionary algorithm based planning for a believable diplomacy bot. Applications of Evolutionary Computation, 6624:83-92, 2011.
  12. Sarit Kraus and Daniel Lehmann. Diplomat, an agent in a multi agent environment: An overview. Technical report, Leibniz Center for Research in Computer Science, 1987.
  13. Sarit Kraus, Daniel Lehmann, and Eithan Ephrati. An automated diplomacy player. In D. Levy and D. Beal, editors, Heuristic Programming in Artificial In- telligence: The 1st Computer Olympiad, pages 136-153. Ellis Horwood Limited, Chinester, UK, 1989.
  14. Aleksander Krzywinski, Weiqin Chen, and Arne Helgesen. Agent architecture in social games -the implementation of subsumption architecture in diplomacy. In Proceedings of the Fourth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertain- ment Conference, pages 191-196, 2008.
  15. Danny Loeb. Challenges in multi-player gaming by computers: A treatise on the diplomacy programming project. http://diplom.org/Zine/S1995M/Loeb/ Project.html. Accessed: 29-07-2015.
  16. David Norman. Dumbbot algorithm. http://www.daide.org.uk/index.php? title=DumbBot_Algorithm. Accessed: 29-07-2015.
  17. Sylwia Polberg, Marcin Paprzycki, and Maria Ganzha. Developing intelligent bots for the diplomacy game. In Proceedings of Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2011), pages 589-596, 2011.
  18. João Ribeiro, Pedro Mariano, and Luís Seabra Lopes. Darkblade: A program that plays diplomacy. In Luís Seabra Lopes, Nuno Lau, Pedro Mariano, and Luís M. Rocha, editors, Progress in Artificial Intelligence, volume 5816 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 485-496. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
  19. S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, 3rd edition, 2009.
  20. Ari Shapiro, Gil Fuchs, and Robert Levinson. Learning a game strategy using pattern-weights and self-play. In Jonathan Schaeffer, Martin Mller, and Yngvi Bjrnsson, editors, Computers and Games, volume 2883 of Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, pages 42-60. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
  21. Adam Webb, Jason Chin, and Thomas Wilkins. Automated negotiation in the game of diplomacy. Technical report, Imperial College London, 2008.

Related papers

DipBlue: A Diplomacy Agent with Strategic and Trust Reasoning
Henrique Lopes Cardoso

Proceedings of the International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, 2015

Diplomacy is a military strategy turn-based board game, which takes place in the turn of the 20th century, where seven world powers fight for the dominion of Europe. The game can be played by 2 to 7 players and is characterized by not having random factors, as well as, by being a zero-sum game. It has a very important component when played by human players that has been put aside in games typically addressed by Artificial Intelligence techniques: before making their moves the players can negotiate among themselves and discuss issues such as alliances, move propositions, exchange of information, among others. Keeping in mind that the players act simultaneously and that the number of units and movements is extremely large, the result is a vast game tree impossible of being effectively searched. The majority of existing artificial players for Diplomacy don't make use of the negotiation opportunities the game provides and try to solve the problem through solution search and the use of complex heuristics.

View PDFchevron_right
Negotiation and honesty in artificial intelligence methods for the board game of Diplomacy
Kevin R . McKee

Nature Communications, 2022

The success of human civilization is rooted in our ability to cooperate by communicating and making joint plans. We study how artificial agents may use communication to better cooperate in Diplomacy, a long-standing AI challenge. We propose negotiation algorithms allowing agents to agree on contracts regarding joint plans, and show they outperform agents lacking this ability. For humans, misleading others about our intentions forms a barrier to cooperation. Diplomacy requires reasoning about our opponents' future plans, enabling us to study broken commitments between agents and the conditions for honest cooperation. We find that artificial agents face a similar problem as humans: communities of communicating agents are susceptible to peers who deviate from agreements. To defend against this, we show that the inclination to sanction peers who break contracts dramatically reduces the advantage of such deviators. Hence, sanctioning helps foster mostly truthful communication, despite conditions that initially favor deviations from agreements. Coordination, cooperation and negotiation play a key role in our everyday lives, from small-scale problems such as safely driving on roads and scheduling meetings to large-scale efforts such as international trade or mediating peace. A key driver to the success of humans as a species is our ability to cooperate with others 1,2. Systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) control a growing part of our lives, from personal assistants to high-stake decisions such as authorizing loans or automated job market screening 3,4. Cooperation and negotiation are central to AI 5-11 , and AI systems already affect human trade and negotiation through algorithmic trading and bidding 10,12-16. It is thus imperative that we endow our AI systems with the tools to coordinate and negotiate with others 3,7,11,17,18. Game playing has been a focus area of AI since its inception. Progress on search, reinforcement learning, and game theory 9,19-21 led to successes in Chess 22 , Go 23 , Poker 24 , control 25 , and video games 26,27. However, the majority of such work deals with two-player games that are fully competitive (zero-sum), which are mathematically easier to analyze 18,28 , but cannot capture alliance formation and negotiation. Similarly, work on games where agent goals are fully aligned 29,30 , or two teams of agents engaged in a competition 27,31,32 , lacks the need to negotiate. In contrast, many real-life domains require negotiation as the goals of participants only partially align. These domains exhibit tensions between cooperation and competition 7,33-35 , making them harder to tackle using AI agents 21,36,37. Communication has a key role in such settings as it enables us to share beliefs, goals and intents with others, allowing us to negotiate, form alliances and find mutually beneficial agreements 10. Diplomacy 38 is a prominent 7-player board game that focuses on communication, cooperation and negotiation. An introduction to the rules of Diplomacy is given in Supplementary Note 1. Diplomacy is played on a map of Europe partitioned into provinces, some of which are special and marked as Supply Centers. Each player attempts to own the majority of the supply centers, and controls multiple units (armies or fleets). A unit may support another unit (owned by the same or another player), allowing it to overcome resistance by other units. Due to the inter-dependencies between units, players stand to gain by

View PDFchevron_right
Designing and building a negotiating automated agent
Sarit Kraus

Computational Intelligence, 1995

View PDFchevron_right
Developing intelligent bots for the Diplomacy game
Marcin Paprzycki

2011

This paper describes the design of an architecture of a bot capable of playing the Diplomacy game, to be used within the dip framework-a testbed for multi-agent negotiations. The proposed SillyNegoBot, is an extension of the SillyBot. It is designed to be used in the level-1 negotiations (as defined within the dip framework) taking place during the Diplomacy game.

View PDFchevron_right
D-Brane: a Diplomacy Playing Agent for Automated Negotiations Research
Dave de Jonge

Applied Intelligence, 2017

Existing work on Automated Negotiations commonly assumes the ne-gotiators' utility functions have explicit closed-form expressions, and can be calculated quickly. In many real-world applications however, the calculation of utility can be a complex, time-consuming problem and utility functions cannot always be expressed in terms of simple formulas. The game of Diplomacy forms an ideal test bed for research on Automated Negotiations in such domains where utility is hard to calculate. Unfortunately, developing a full Diplomacy player is a hard task, which requires more than just the implementation of a negotiation algorithm. The performance of such a player may highly depend on the underlying strategy rather than just its negotiation skills. Therefore, we introduce a new Diplomacy playing agent, called D-Brane, which has won the first international Computer Diplomacy Challenge. It is built up in a modular fashion, disconnecting its negotiation algorithm from its game-playing strategy, to allow future researchers to build their own negotiation algorithms on top of its strategic module. This will allow them to easily compare the performance of different negotiation algorithms. We show that D-Brane strongly outplays a number of previously developed Diplomacy players, even when it does not apply negotiations. Furthermore, we explain the negotiation algorithm applied by D-Brane, and present a number of additional tools, bundled together in the new BANDANA framework, that will make development of Diplomacy-playing agents easier.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Towards General Cooperative Game Playing
João Marinheiro

Springer eBooks, 2018

Attempts to develop generic approaches to game playing have been around for several years in the field of Artificial Intelligence. However, games that involve explicit cooperation among otherwise competitive players-cooperative negotiation games-have not been addressed by current approaches. Yet, such games provide a much richer set of features, related with social aspects of interactions, which make them appealing for envisioning real-world applications. This work proposes a generic agent architecture-Alpha-to tackle cooperative negotiation games, combining elements such as search strategies, negotiation, opponent modeling and trust management. The architecture is then validated in the context of two different games that fall in this category-Diplomacy and Werewolves. Alpha agents are tested in several scenarios, against other state-of-the-art agents. Besides highlighting the promising performance of the agents, the role of each architectural component in each game is assessed.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved