Advertisement

Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 104–140 | Cite as

Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning

  • Reyhan Aydoğan
  • Pınar Yolum
Article

Abstract

We consider automated negotiation as a process carried out by software agents to reach a consensus. To automate negotiation, we expect agents to understand their user’s preferences, generate offers that will satisfy their user, and decide whether counter offers are satisfactory. For this purpose, a crucial aspect is the treatment of preferences. An agent not only needs to understand its own user’s preferences, but also its opponent’s preferences so that agreements can be reached. Accordingly, this paper proposes a learning algorithm that can be used by a producer during negotiation to understand consumer’s needs and to offer services that respect consumer’s preferences. Our proposed algorithm is based on inductive learning but also incorporates the idea of revision. Thus, as the negotiation proceeds, a producer can revise its idea of the consumer’s preferences. The learning is enhanced with the use of ontologies so that similar service requests can be identified and treated similarly. Further, the algorithm is targeted to learning both conjunctive as well as disjunctive preferences. Hence, even if the consumer’s preferences are specified in complex ways, our algorithm can learn and guide the producer to create well-targeted offers. Further, our algorithm can detect whether some preferences cannot be satisfied early and thus consensus cannot be reached. Our experimental results show that the producer using our learning algorithm negotiates faster and more successfully with customers compared to several other algorithms.

Keywords

Negotiation Preference Learning Ontology Reasoning Disjunctive Preferences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abedin, F., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., & Arochena, H. (2009). Preference ordering in agenda based multi-issue negotiation for service level agreement. In WAINA ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on advanced information networking and applications workshops, (pp. 19–24). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alpaydın E. (2004) Introduction to machine learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aydoğan, R., & Yolum, P. (2007). Learning consumer preferences using semantic similarity. In Proceedings of sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1293–1300). Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aydoğan, R., & Yolum, P. (2009). Ontology-based learning for negotiation. In IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (IAT 2009) (pp. 177–184). Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aydoğan R., & Yolum, P. (2010). The effect of preference representation on learning preferences in negotiation. In The third international workshop on agent-based complex automated negotiations (ACAN 2010) (pp. 1–8). Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boutilier C., Brafman R. I., Domshlak C., Hoos H. H., Poole D. (2004) Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 21: 135–191zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boutilier, C., Regan, K., & Viappiani, P. (2009). Preference elicitation with subjective features. In RecSys ’09: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 341–344). New York, NY, USA: ACMGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Buffett, S., & Spencer, B. (2005). Learning opponents’ preferences in multi-object automated negotiation. In ICEC ’05: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Electronic commerce (pp. 300–305). New York, NY, USA: ACMGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi S. P. M., Liu J., Chan S. (2001) A genetic agent-based negotiation system. Computer Networks 37(2): 195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demšar J. (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7: 1–30zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Faratin P., Sierra C., Jennings N. R. (2002) Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142: 205–237CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedman M. (1940) A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11(1): 86–92CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruber T. R. (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acqusition 5(2): 199–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hindriks, K., & Tykhonov, D. (2008). Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 331–338).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Jennings N. R., Faratin P., Lomuscio A. R., Parsons S., Sierra C., Wooldridge M. (2001) Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2): 199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jonker C. M., Robu V., Treur J. (2007) An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 15(2): 221–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lai, G., Li, C., Sycara, K., & Giampapa, J.A. (2004). Literature review on multi-attribute negotiations. Technical report, Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lau R. Y. K., Tang M., Wong O., Milliner S. W., Chen Y. P. (2006) An evolutionary learning approach for adaptive negotiation agents. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 21(1): 41–72CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N., Leung H., Lee J. H. (2003) A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artifical Intelligence 148(1–2): 53–102CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontologies come of age. In Spinning the semantic web (pp. 171–194). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitchell T. M. (1982) Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence 18(2): 203–226CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mitchell T. M. (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quinlan J. R. (1986) Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1(1): 81–106Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rahwan I., Ramchurn S. D., Jennings N. R., Mcburney P., Parsons S., Sonenberg L. (2003) Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4): 343–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raiffa H. (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raileanu L. E., Stoffel K. (2004) Theoretical comparison between the gini index and information gain criteria. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 41(1): 77–93CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramchurn, S. D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., & Jennings, N. R. (2006). Negotiating using rewards. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 400–407).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shannon C., Petigara N., Seshasai S. (1948) A mathematical theory of. Communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Somefun, D. J. A., & Poutré, J. A. L. (2007). A fast method for learning non-linear preferences online using anonymous negotiation data. In Agent-mediated electronic commerce. Automated negotiation and strategy design for electronic markets. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 118–131). SpringerGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Zheng D. D., Sycara K. (1998) Bayesian learning in negotiation. International Journal of Human-Computers Studies 48(1): 125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityBebek, IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations