Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning
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.
KeywordsNegotiation Preference Learning Ontology Reasoning Disjunctive Preferences
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Alpaydın E. (2004) Introduction to machine learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- 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.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.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
- 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.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
- 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.Jena, (2009). http://jena.sourceforge.net/.
- 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
- 21.McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontologies come of age. In Spinning the semantic web (pp. 171–194). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 24.Quinlan J. R. (1986) Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1(1): 81–106Google Scholar
- 26.Raiffa H. (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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.Wine, (2009). http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine.rdf.