Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 357–388 | Cite as

Heuristics for using CP-nets in utility-based negotiation without knowing utilities

  • Reyhan AydoğanEmail author
  • Tim Baarslag
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Pınar Yolum
Regular Paper


CP-nets have proven to be an effective representation for capturing preferences. However, their use in automated negotiation is not straightforward because, typically, preferences in CP-nets are partially ordered and negotiating agents are required to compare any two outcomes based on a request and an offer in order to negotiate effectively. If agents know how to generate total orders from their CP-nets, they can make this comparison. This paper proposes heuristics that enable the use of CP-nets in utility-based negotiations by generating total orderings. To validate this approach, the paper compares the performance of CP-nets with our heuristics with the performance of UCP-nets that are equipped with complete preference orderings. Our results show that we can achieve comparable performance in terms of the outcome utility. More importantly, one of our proposed heuristics can achieve this performance with significantly smaller number of interactions compared to UCP-nets.


Automated negotiation Qualitative preferences CP-nets  Heuristic-based approaches 



This research has been supported by Boğaziçi University Research Fund under grant BAP5694 and the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey. Most of this work has been done when Reyhan Aydoğan was at Bogazici University. Some of the ideas presented in this paper initially appeared in [1, 2, 3].


  1. 1.
    Aydoğan R, Baarslag T, Hindriks K, Jonker CM, Yolum P (2013) Heuristic-based approaches for CP-nets in negotiation. In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Matsuo T (eds) Complex automated negotiations: theories, models, and software competitions, vol 435 of studies in computational intelligence, pp 113–123Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aydoğan R, Tasdemir N, Yolum P (2010) Reasoning and negotiating with complex preferences using CP-nets. In: Aalst W, Mylopoulos J, Sadeh NM, Shaw MJ, Szyperski C, Ketter W, Poutr H, Sadeh N, Shehory O, Walsh W (eds) Agent-mediated electronic commerce and trading agent design and analysis, vol 44 of lecture notes in business information processing, pp 15–28Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aydoğan R, Yolum P (2010) Effective negotiation with partial preference information. In: Proceedings of the ninth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). Toronto, Canada, pp 1605–1606Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aydoğan R, Yolum P (2012) Learning opponents preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning. J Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 24(1):104–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baarslag T, Hindriks K, Jonker CM, Kraus S, Lin R (2010) The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Fatima S, Matsuo T (eds) New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations, series of studies in computational intelligence (to appear). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boutilier C, Bacchus F, Brafman RI (2001) UCP-networks: a directed graphical representation of conditional utilities. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Seattle, USA, pp 56–64Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boutilier C, Brafman RI, Domshlak C, Hoos HH, Poole D (2004) CP-nets: a tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. J Artif Intell Res 21:135–191zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brin S, Page L (1998) The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput Netw ISDN Syst 30(1–7):107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chalamish M, Kraus S (2007) Automed: an automated mediator for bilateral negotiations under time constraints. In: Proceedings of the sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp 248:1–3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen S, Weiss G (2012) A novel strategy for efficient negotiation in complex environments. In: Timm IJ, Guttmann C (eds) ‘MATES’, vol 7598 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 68–82Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Coehoorn RM, Jennings NR (2004) Learning on opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on electronic commerce, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dan Pelleg AM (2000) X-means: extending K-means with efficient estimation of the number of clusters. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth international conference on machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 727–734Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Domshlak C, Prestwich SD, Rossi F, Venable KB, Walsh T (2006) Hard and soft constraints for reasoning about qualitative conditional preferences. J Heuristics 12(4–5):263–285zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Int J Robot Auton Syst 24(3–4):159–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (2002) Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artif Intell 142:205–237MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fatima S, Wooldridge M, Jennings N (2007) On efficient procedures for multi-issue negotiation. In: Fasli M, Shehory O (eds) Automated negotiation and strategy design for electronic markets, vol 4452 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–45Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ficici SG, Pfeffer A (2008) Simultaneously modeling human’s preferences and their beliefs about other’s preferences. In: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems-vol 1, AAMAS ’08, pp 323–330Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fishburn PC (1970) Utility theory for decision making. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fisher RA (1959) Statistical methods and scientific inference, 2nd edn. Hafner Publishing Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gode DK, Sunder S (1993) Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. J Polit Econ 101(1):119–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hao J, Leung H-F (2012) Abines: an adaptive bilateral negotiating strategy over multiple items. In: Proceedings of the the 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, vol 02’, WI-IAT ’12. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, pp 95–102Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hindriks K, Jonker CM, Kraus S, Lin R, Tykhonov D (2009) Genius: negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In: Proceedings of the eighth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), vol 2, pp 1397–1398Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hindriks K, Tykhonov D (2008) Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In: Proceedings of the seventh international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). Estorial, Portugal, pp 331–338Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hindriks KV, Tykhonov D (2010) Towards a quality assessment method for learning preference profiles in negotiation. In: Aalst W, Mylopoulos J, Sadeh NM, Shaw MJ, Szyperski C, Ketter W, Poutr H, Sadeh N, Shehory O, Walsh W (eds) Agent-mediated electronic commerce and trading agent design and analysis, vol 44 of lecture notes in business information processing, pp 46–59Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jain R, Purohit DGN (2011) Page ranking algorithms for web mining. Int J Comput Appl 13(5):22–25Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jennings NR, Faratin P, Lomuscio AR, Parsons S, Sierra C, Wooldridge M (2001) Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Int J Group Decis Negot 10(2):199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jonker CM, Robu V, Treur J (2007) An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. JAAMAS 15(2):221–252Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klos T, Somefun K, Poutre HL (2011) Automated interactive sales processes. IEEE Intell Syst 26(4):54–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li M, Vo QB, Kowalczyk R (2010) An efficient procedure for collective decision-making with CP-nets. In: Proceeding of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence, Lisbon, Portugal, pp 375–380Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin R, Kraus S, Baarslag T, Tykhonov D, Hindriks K, Jonker CM (2014) Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators . Comput Intell 30(1):48–70Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luo X, Jennings NR, Shadbolt N, Leung H, Lee JH (2003) A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artif Intell 148(1–2):53–102zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rossi F, Venable KB, Walsh T (2002) CP-networks: semantics, complexity, approximations and extensions. In: Proceedings of the forth international workshop on soft constraints (Soft-02) in CP-2002, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rossi F, Venable KB, Walsh T (2004) mCP nets: representing and reasoning with preferences of multiple agents. In: Proceeding of the nineteenth national conference on artificial intelligence, pp 729–734Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Russell SJ, Norvig P (1995) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Egnlewood CliffszbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sierra C, Faratin P, Jennings N (1997) A service-oriented negotiation model between autonomous agents. In: Boman M, van de Velde W (eds) Proceedings of the eighth European workshop on modelling autonomous agents in multi-agent world, MAAMAW’97’, vol 1237 of lecture notes in artificial intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–35Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tim Baarslag
    • 2
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 3
  1. 1.Interactive Intelligence GroupDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Agents, Interaction and Complexity GroupUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations