Abstract
This paper presents a System for Analysis of Multi-Issue Negotiation (SAMIN). The agents in this system conduct one-to-one negotiations, in which the values across multiple issues are negotiated on simultaneously. It is demonstrated how the system supports both automated negotiation (i.e., conducted by a software agent) and human negotiation (where humans specify their bids). To analyse such negotiation processes, the user can enter any formal property deemed useful into the system and use the system to automatically check this property in given negotiation traces. Furthermore, it is shown how, compared to fully closed negotiation, the efficiency of the reached agreements may be improved, either by using incomplete preference information revealed by the negotiation partner or by incorporating a heuristic, through which an agent uses the history of the opponent’s bids in order to guess his preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bosse, T., Jonker, C. and Treur, J., Formalisation of Dynamic Properties of Multi-Issue Negotiations. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Artificial Intelligence. Technical Report, 2004.
Faratin, P., Sierra, C., and Jennings, N.R., Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. In: International Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 24(3–4), 1998, pp. 159–182.
Hyder, E.B., Prietula, M.J., and Weingart, L.R., Getting to Best: Efficiency versus Optimality in Negotiation, In: Cognitive Science, vol. 24(2), 2000, pp. 169–204.
Jonker, C.M., Treur, J., An Agent Architecture for Multi-Attribute Negotiation. In: B. Nebel (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on AI, IJCAI’01, 2001, pp. 1195–1201.
Jonker, C.M., and Treur, J., Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems: a Formal Analysis of Pro-activeness and Reactiveness. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, vol. 11, 2002, pp. 51–92.
Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., and Bar-Yam, Y., (2001), Negotiating Complex Contracts. Paper 125 of the Center for eBusines@MIT. http://ebusiness.mit.edu.
Kowalczyk, R, Bui, V., On Constraint-Based Reasoning in e-Negotiation Agents. In: Dignum, F, and Cortés, U., (eds.), Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce III, Current Issues in Agent-Based Electronic Commerce Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2003, Springer — Verlag, pp. 31–46.
Lomuscio, A.R., Wooldridge, M., and Jennings. N.R., (2000), A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce, In: International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 12(1), January 2003.
Pruitt, D.G., Negotiation Behavior, Academic Press, 1981.
Raiffa, H., Lectures on Negotiation Analysis, PON Books, Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 513 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138, 1996.
Rosenschein, J.S., and Zlotkin, G., Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.
Sandholm, T., Distributed rational decision making, In: Weiss, G., Multi-agent Systems: A Modern Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, 1999, pp. 201–258.
Weingart, L.R., Hyder, E.H., and Prietula, M.J., Knowledge matters: The effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome. In: Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 78, 1996, pp. 504–517.
Jonker, C., Robu, V. — “Automated multi-attribute negotiation with efficient use of incomplete preference information”, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-04), New York, July 2004.
Brazier, F.M.T., Jonker, C.M., and Treur, J. “Compositional Design and Reuse of a Generic Agent Model”, Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal, vol. 14, 2000, pp. 491–538.
Byde, A., Kay-Yut Chen — “AutONA: A System for Automated Multiple 1-1 Negotiation”, Fourth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 198–199.
Faratin, P., Sierra, C. and Jennings, N. Using Similarity Criteria to Make Issue Trade-offs in Automated Negotiations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence vol. 142(2), 2003, pp. 205–237.
Faratin, P., Sierra, C. and Jennings, N. “Using Similarity Criteria to Make Negotiation Trade-Offs”, Proceedings of ICMAS-2000, Boston, MA., 119–126.
Fatima, S. S., Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R.. “Optimal Agendas for Multi-Issue Negotiation”. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-03), Melbourne, July 2003, pp. 129–136.
Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M. and Jennings, N. R.. “Optimal Negotiation Strategies for Agents with Incomplete Information”. In Intelligent Agents VIII, Springer-Verlag LNAI, vol. 2333, pp 377–392, March 2002
Raiffa, H. — “The art and science of negotiation”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2005 Birkhäuser Verlag
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Robu, V., Treur, J. (2005). A System for Analysis of Multi-Issue Negotiation. In: Unland, R., Calisti, M., Klusch, M. (eds) Software Agent-Based Applications, Platforms and Development Kits. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7643-7348-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7643-7348-2_11
Publisher Name: Birkhäuser Basel
Print ISBN: 978-3-7643-7347-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-7643-7348-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)