Negotiation requires dynamically balancing self-interest and cooperation within the flow of conversation to maximize one’s own utility. Yet, existing agents struggle due to bounded rationality in human data, low adaptability to counterpart behavior, and limited strategic reasoning. To address this, we introduce principle-driven negotiation agents, powered by ASTRA, a novel framework for turn-level offer optimization grounded in two core principles: opponent modeling and Tit-for-Tat reciprocity. ASTRA operates in three stages: (1) interpreting counterpart behavior, (2) optimizing counteroffers via a linear programming (LP) solver, and (3) selecting offers based on negotiation tactics and the partner’s acceptance probability. Through simulations and human evaluations, our agent effectively adapts to an opponent’s shifting stance and achieves favorable outcomes through enhanced adaptability and strategic reasoning. Beyond improving negotiation performance, it also serves as a powerful coaching tool, offering interpretable strategic feedback and optimal offer recommendations.

ASTRA: A Negotiation Agent with Adaptive and Strategic Reasoning via Tool-integrated Action for Dynamic Offer Optimization

Large language models (LLMs) show promising capabilities in predicting human emotions from text. However, the mechanisms through which these models process emotional stimuli remain largely unexplored. Our study addresses this gap by investigating how autoregressive LLMs infer emotions, showing that emotion representations are functionally localized to specific regions in the model. Our evaluation includes diverse model families and sizes, and is supported by robustness checks. We then show that the identified representations are psychologically plausible by drawing on cognitive appraisal theory—a well-established psychological framework positing that emotions emerge from evaluations (appraisals) of environmental stimuli. By causally intervening on construed appraisal concepts, we steer the generation and show that the outputs align with theoretical and intuitive expectations. This work highlights a novel way to causally intervene and control emotion inference, potentially benefiting safety and alignment in sensitive affective domains.

Mechanistic Interpretability of Emotion Inference in Large Language Models

We present $\texttt{KODIS}$, a dyadic dispute resolution corpus containing thousands of dialogues from over 75 countries. Motivated by a theoretical model of culture and conflict, participants engage in a typical customer service dispute designed by experts to evoke strong emotions and conflict. The corpus contains a rich set of dispositional, process, and outcome measures. The initial analysis supports theories of how anger expressions lead to escalatory spirals and highlights cultural differences in emotional expression. We make this corpus and data collection framework available to the community.

KODIS: A Multicultural Dispute Resolution Dialogue Corpus

A successful negotiation requires a range of capabilities, including comprehension of the conversation context, Theory-of-Mind (ToM) skills to infer the partner’s motives, strategic reasoning, and effective communication, making it challenging for automated systems. Despite the remarkable performance of LLMs in various NLP tasks, there is no systematic evaluation of their capabilities in negotiation. Such an evaluation is critical for advancing AI negotiation agents and negotiation research, ranging from designing dialogue systems to providing pedagogical feedback and scaling up data collection practices. This work aims to systematically analyze the multifaceted capabilities of LLMs across diverse dialogue scenarios throughout the stages of a typical negotiation interaction. Our analysis highlights GPT-4’s superior performance in many tasks while identifying specific challenges, such as making subjective assessments and generating contextually appropriate, strategically advantageous responses.

Are LLMs Effective Negotiators? Systematic Evaluation of the Multifaceted Capabilities of LLMs in Negotiation Dialogues

Conversational moderation of online communities is crucial to maintaining civility for a constructive environment, but it is challenging to scale and harmful to moderators. The inclusion of sophisticated natural language generation modules as a force multiplier to aid human moderators is a tantalizing prospect, but adequate evaluation approaches have so far been elusive. In this paper, we establish a systematic definition of conversational moderation effectiveness grounded on moderation literature and establish design criteria for conducting realistic yet safe evaluation. We then propose a comprehensive evaluation framework to assess models' moderation capabilities independently of human intervention. With our framework, we conduct the first known study of language models as conversational moderators, finding that appropriately prompted models that incorporate insights from social science can provide specific and fair feedback on toxic behavior but struggle to influence users to increase their levels of respect and cooperation.

Can Language Model Moderators Improve the Health of Online Discourse?

A natural way to design a negotiation dialogue system is via self-play RL: train an agent that learns to maximize its performance by interacting with a simulated user that has been designed to imitate human-human dialogue data. Although this procedure has been adopted in prior work, we find that it results in a fundamentally flawed system that fails to learn the value of compromise in a negotiation, which can often lead to no agreements (i.e., the partner walking away without a deal), ultimately hurting the model’s overall performance. We investigate this observation in the context of DealOrNoDeal task, a multi-issue negotiation over books, hats, and balls. Grounded in negotiation theory from Economics, we modify the training procedure in two novel ways to design agents with diverse personalities and analyze their performance with human partners. We find that although both techniques show promise, a selfish agent, which maximizes its own performance while also avoiding walkaways, performs superior to other variants by implicitly learning to generate value for both itself and the negotiation partner. We discuss the implications of our findings for what it means to be a successful negotiation dialogue system and how these systems should be designed in the future.

Be Selfish, But Wisely: Investigating the Impact of Agent Personality in Mixed-Motive Human-Agent Interactions

Dialogue systems capable of social influence such as persuasion, negotiation, and therapy, are essential for extending the use of technology to numerous realistic scenarios. However, existing research primarily focuses on either task-oriented or open-domain scenarios, a categorization that has been inadequate for capturing influence skills systematically. There exists no formal definition or category for dialogue systems with these skills and data-driven efforts in this direction are highly limited. In this work, we formally define and introduce the category of social influence dialogue systems that influence users' cognitive and emotional responses, leading to changes in thoughts, opinions, and behaviors through natural conversations. We present a survey of various tasks, datasets, and methods, compiling the progress across seven diverse domains. We discuss the commonalities and differences between the examined systems, identify limitations, and recommend future directions. This study serves as a comprehensive reference for social influence dialogue systems to inspire more dedicated research and discussion in this emerging area.

Social Influence Dialogue Systems: A Survey of Datasets and Models For Social Influence Tasks

Opponent modeling is the task of inferring another party's mental state within the context of social interactions. In a multi-issue negotiation, it involves inferring the relative importance that the opponent assigns to each issue under discussion, which is crucial for finding high-value deals. A practical model for this task needs to infer these priorities of the opponent on the fly based on partial dialogues as input, without needing additional annotations for training. In this work, we propose a ranker for identifying these priorities from negotiation dialogues. The model takes in a partial dialogue as input and predicts the priority order of the opponent. We further devise ways to adapt related data sources for this task to provide more explicit supervision for incorporating the opponent's preferences and offers, as a proxy to relying on granular utterance-level annotations. We show the utility of our proposed approach through extensive experiments based on two dialogue datasets. We find that the proposed data adaptations lead to strong performance in zero-shot and few-shot scenarios. Moreover, they allow the model to perform better than baselines while accessing fewer utterances from the opponent. We release our code to support future work in this direction.

Opponent Modeling in Negotiation Dialogues by Related Data Adaptation

Prior research often finds increased altruism following natural disasters. One explanation is the social heuristic hypothesis: humans are prosocial by nature but become self-interested when they have the opportunity to deliberate. As the stress of a disaster lowers people’s ability to engage in effortful deliberation, their heuristic prosocial tendencies emerge. However, this link has often been explored with very simple tasks; here, we study the impact of COVID-related stress on outcomes in multi-issue negotiations with a computational virtual agent. In two experiments with a virtual negotiation partner, we explore two distinct pathways for how COVID-19 stress shapes prosocial behavior. Consistent with the social heuristic hypothesis, COVID-stress is correlated with giving, mediated by heuristic thinking. But COVID-stress also seems to enhance information-exchange and perspective taking, which allowed participants to grow more value which they could give away. Our results give new insights into the relationship between stress, cognition, and prosocial behavior.

Pandemic Panic: The Effect of Disaster-Related Stress on Negotiation Outcomes

Automated systems that negotiate with humans have broad applications in pedagogy and conversational AI. To advance the development of practical negotiation systems, we present CaSiNo: a novel corpus of over a thousand negotiation dialogues in English. Participants take the role of campsite neighbors and negotiate for food, water, and firewood packages for their upcoming trip. Our design results in diverse and linguistically rich negotiations while maintaining a tractable, closed-domain environment. Inspired by the literature in human-human negotiations, we annotate persuasion strategies and perform correlation analysis to understand how the dialogue behaviors are associated with the negotiation performance. We further propose and evaluate a multi-task framework to recognize these strategies in a given utterance. We find that multi-task learning substantially improves the performance for all strategy labels, especially for the ones that are the most skewed. We release the dataset, annotations, and the code to propel future work in human-machine negotiations: https://github.com/kushalchawla/CaSiNo.

CaSiNo: A Corpus of Campsite Negotiation Dialogues for Automatic Negotiation Systems

Women and minorities obtain lower salaries when negotiating their employment compensation. Some have suggested that automated negotiation and dispute-resolution technology might address such material inequities. These algorithms elicit the multi-criteria preferences of each side of a dispute and arrive at solutions that are efficient and "provably" fair. In a study that explores the potential benefit of these methods, we highlight cognitive factors that may allow inequities to persist despite these methods. Specifically, risk-averse individuals express lower preferences for salary and as risk-aversion is more common in women and minorities, this translates into a ``provably'' fair lower salary. While this may reflect actual underlying differences in preferences across groups, individuals may be confounding their preferences for salary with their risk preference (i.e., their fear of not reaching an agreement), such that these groups achieve worse outcomes than they should. We further highlight that methodological choices in how negotiation processes are often studied can obscure the magnitude of this effect.


Jonathan Gratch

11

6

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES