  In collaborative planning activities, since the agents are autonomous and
heterogeneous, it is inevitable that conflicts arise in their beliefs during
the planning process. In cases where such conflicts are relevant to the task at
hand, the agents should engage in collaborative negotiation as an attempt to
square away the discrepancies in their beliefs. This paper presents a
computational strategy for detecting conflicts regarding proposed beliefs and
for engaging in collaborative negotiation to resolve the conflicts that warrant
resolution. Our model is capable of selecting the most effective aspect to
address in its pursuit of conflict resolution in cases where multiple conflicts
arise, and of selecting appropriate evidence to justify the need for such
modification. Furthermore, by capturing the negotiation process in a recursive
Propose-Evaluate-Modify cycle of actions, our model can successfully handle
embedded negotiation subdialogues.
