Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 221–252 | Cite as

An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information

Open Access
Article

Abstract

A component-based generic agent architecture for multi-attribute (integrative) negotiation is introduced and its application is described in a prototype system for negotiation about cars, developed in cooperation with, among others, Dutch Telecom KPN. The approach can be characterized as cooperative one-to-one multi-criteria negotiation in which the privacy of both parties is protected as much as desired. We model a mechanism in which agents are able to use any amount of incomplete preference information revealed by the negotiation partner in order to improve the efficiency of the reached agreements. Moreover, we show that the outcome of such a negotiation can be further improved by incorporating a “guessing” heuristic, by which an agent uses the history of the opponent’s bids to predict his preferences. Experimental evaluation shows that the combination of these two strategies leads to agreement points close to or on the Pareto-efficient frontier. The main original contribution of this paper is that it shows that it is possible for parties in a cooperative negotiation to reveal only a limited amount of preference information to each other, but still obtain significant joint gains in the outcome.

Keywords

Agent architecture Bilateral negotiation Multi-attribute negotiation Cooperative negotiation Component-based modeling Cognitive modeling 

References

  1. 1.
    Benn, W., Goerlitz, O., & Neubert, R. (1999). Enabling integrative negotiations by adaptive software agents. In Cooperative Information Agents III, LNAI Vol. 1652 (pp. 335–346). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosse, T., & Jonker, C. M. (2005). Human vs. computer behaviour in multi-issue negotiation. In T. Ito, H. Hattori, T. Matsuo, & M. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the first international workshop on rational, robust, and secure negotiations in multi-agent systems, RRS’05, pp. 10–25.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (2004). Experiments in human multi-issue negotiation: Analysis and support. In N. R. Jennings, C. Sierra, L. Sonenberg, & M. Tambe, (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, AAMAS’04. ACM Press, pp. 672–679. Extended version: Bosse, T., Jonker, C. M., van der Meij, L. & Treur, J. (2007). Automated formal analysis of human multi-issue negotiation processes. Multi-agent and Grid Systems Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brazier F.M.T., Jonker C.M., Treur J. (2000). Compositional design and reuse of a generic agent model. Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal 14: 491–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brzostowski, J., & Kowalczyk, R. (2006). Experimental evaluation of posibilistic mechanism for negotiation partners selection. In Proceedings of second international workshop on rational, robust, and secure negotiations in multi-agent systems, Hakodate, Japan. Springer Lecture Notes in Computational Intelligence (to appear).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byde, A., & Chen, K.-Y. AutONA: A System for Automated Multiple 1–1 Negotiation. Fourth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, (2003) pp. 198–199.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coehoorn, R. M., & Jennings, R. M. (2004). Learning an opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation tradeoffs. In Proceedings of sixth international conference on e-commerce, delft, ACM Press, pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dash R.K., Parkes D.C., Jennings N.R. (2003). Computational mechanism design: A call to arms. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(6): 40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dang J., Huhns M.H. (2006). Concurrent multiple-issue negotiation for internet-based services. IEEE Internet Computing 10(6): 42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faratin P., Sierra C., Jennings N. (2003). Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 142(2): 205–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2002). Optimal negotiation strategies for agents with incomplete information. In Intelligent Agents VIII, LNAI, Vol. 2333, (pp. 377–392). March 2002, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fatima, S. S., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2003). Optimal agendas for multi-issue negotiation. Second international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS-03), Melbourne, July 2003, pp. 129–136.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gutman, R., & Maes, P. (1998). Cooperative vs. competitive multi-agent negotiation in retail electronic commerce. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on cooperative information agents (CIA’98), NAI Vol. 1435, (pp. 135–148) Springer Verlag, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hemaissia, M., Seghrouchni, A. E. F., Labreuche, C., & Mattioli, J. (2006). Cooperation-based multilateral multi-issue negotiation for crisis management. In Proceedings of second international workshop on rational, robust, and secure negotiations in multi-agent systems, Hakodate, Japan. Springer LNCI (to appear).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jonker, C., & Robu, V. (2004). Automated multi-attribute negotiation with efficient use of incomplete preference information. In Proceedings of third international conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS-04), New York, pp. 1056–1064, ACM Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (1999). A re-usable broker agent architecture with dynamic maintenance capabilities. In O. Etzioni, J. P. Mueller, & J. Bradshaw (Eds.), Proceedings of the third annual conference on autonomous agents, Agents’99. ACM Press, 1999, pp. 376–377. Extended version: Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (2002). Compositional design and maintenance of broker agents. In L. C. Jain, Z. Chen, & N. Ichalkaranje (Eds.), Intelligent Agent and their Applications, (pp. 149–171). Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (2001). An agent architecture for multi–attribute negotiation. In B. Nebel (Ed.), Proceedings of the seventeenth international joint conference on AI, IJCAI’01, 2001, pp. 1195–1201.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). Negotiating complex contracts. In Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. Bologna:AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klein M., Faratin P., Sayama H., Bar-Yam Y. (2003). Protocols for negotiating complex contracts. IEEE Intelligent Systems Journal, Special Issue Agents & Markets 18(6): 32–38Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lai, G., Li, C., Sycara, K., & Giampapa, J. (2004). Literature review on multi-attribute negotiations, Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-04–66, Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lai, G., Sycara, K., & Li, C. (2006). A decentralized model for multi-attribute negotiations with incomplete information and general utility functions. In Proceedings of second international workshop on rational, robust, and secure negotiations in multi-agent systems, Hakodate, Japan. Springer LNCI (to appear).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lewicki R., Saunders D., Minton J. (1997). Essentials of negotiation. Irwin Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luo X., Shadbolt N., Leung H., Lee J. H., Jennings N.R. (2003). A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence Journal 142(1–2): 53–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S. D., Jennings, N. R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., & Sonenberg L. (2004). Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review (to appear).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raiffa H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raiffa, H. (1996). Lectures on negotiation analysis. PON Books, Harvard Law School.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Robu, V. (2003). Improving the efficiency of cooperative negotiations in electronic environments with incomplete information. Master Thesis, Vrije Univ, Amst.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosenschein J.S., Zlotkin G. (1994). Rules of Encounter. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachussetsGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shakshuki, E., & Abu-Draz, S. (2005). Agent-mediated e-commerce system. In Proceedings of the nineteenth international conference on advanced networking and applications (AINA’05), Vol. 2, pp. 739–744, IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Somefun K., Gerding E., Bohte S., & La Poutré, H. (2003). Automated negotiation and bundling of information goods. In Agent-mediated electronic commerce V, Melbourne, Australia, July.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Strobel, M. (2000). Effects of electronic markets on negotiation processes. IBM Research Technical Report, Zurich.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Valentin Robu
    • 2
  • Jan Treur
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer ScienceDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.CWI, Dutch Research Center for Mathematics and Computer ScienceAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations