

![0_image_0.png](0_image_0.png) 

 $ \underline{B:\underline{\textit{flex}^{2}_{B}})}$  (. 
The system closes the MN by:

$$\frac{*(B,A)\quad B:f l e x_{B}^{2}\quad A:{\bf a g r e}}{A g r e m e n t(B,A)}$$
Agreement(*B, A*)(A)
with a positive outcome, *flex* 2B.

In Figure 10, we show the message passing flow between Alice and Bob and the changes of the EGG/YOLK configurations. The MN results in a path, shown in Figure 11, from node 8 to node 41 of the graph in Figure 9.

3.3.2 Generalized Stubbornness Knowledge Suppose that one agent's stubbornness set is a *generalization* of the theory of the opponent, i.e. they are consistent and one is a restriction of the other. Then

## Stubi → Stubj

The generalization (weakening, relaxing, etc.) relation between stubbornness theories is represented in RCC5 as the partial proper part relation between eggs. We assumed that the stubbornness part of the agent theory never changes, then the models satisfying it are fixed at the beginning of the negotiation process.

On the other hand, the flexible sets are relaxed or changed during the negotiation process so that the models satisfying them change during the negotiation. The flexible models are the yolks of the RCC theory.