Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 73–97 | Cite as

A study of computational and human strategies in revelation games



Many negotiations in the real world are characterized by incomplete information, and participants’ success depends on their ability to reveal information in a way that facilitates agreements without compromising their individual gain. This paper presents an agent-design that is able to negotiate proficiently with people in settings in which agents can choose to truthfully reveal their private information before engaging in multiple rounds of negotiation. Such settings are analogous to real-world situations in which people need to decide whether to disclose information such as when negotiating over health plans and business transactions. The agent combined a decision-theoretic approach with traditional machine-learning techniques to reason about the social factors that affect the players’ revelation decisions on people’s negotiation behavior. It was shown to outperform people as well as agents playing the equilibrium strategy of the game in empirical studies spanning hundreds of subjects. It was also more likely to reach agreement than people or agents playing equilibrium strategies. In addition, it had a positive effect on people’s play, allowing them to reach significantly better performance when compared to people’s play with other people. These results are shown to generalize for two different settings that varied how players depend on each other in the negotiation.


Human–computer negotiation Opponent modeling Empirical studies 



This research is supported in part by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and the U.S. Army Research Ofce under Grant number W911NF-08-1-0144, by ERC Grant #267523, EU Grant FP7-ICT-2011-9 #600854 and Marie Curie Grant #268362.


  1. 1.
    Amir, O., Rand, D. G., et al. (2012). Economic games on the internet: The effect of \({\$}\)1 stakes. PloS ONE, 7(2), e31461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azaria, A., Rabinovich, Z., Kraus, S., & Goldman, C. V. (2011). Strategic information disclosure to people with multiple alternatives. In Proceedings of AAAI.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E. H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N. R., et al. (2013). Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198, 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banks, J., Camerer, C. F., & Porter, D. (1994). Experimental tests of nash refinements in signaling games. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 1–31.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bench-Capon, T., Atkinson, K., & McBurney, P. (2009). Altruism and agents: an argumentation based approach to designing agent decision mechanisms. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coehoorn, R. M., & Jennings, N. R. (2004). Learning on opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs. In Proceedings of EC.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Melo, C., Carnevale, P., Read, S., Antos, D., & Gratch, J. (2012). Bayesian model of the social effects of emotion in decision-making in multiagent systems. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erev, I., & Roth, A. E. (1998). Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. American Economic Review, 88(4), 848–881.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gal, Y., Grosz, B., Kraus, S., Pfeffer, A., & Shieber, S. (2010). Agent decision-making in open-mixed networks. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18), 1460–1480.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gal, Y., Kraus, S., Gelfand, M., Khashan, H., & Salmon, E. (2012). Negotiating with people across cultures using an adaptive agent. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 3(1).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gal, Y., & Pfeffer, A. (2007). Modeling reciprocity in human bilateral negotiation. In Proceedings of AAAI.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosz, B., Kraus, S., Talman, S., & Stossel, B. (2004). The influence of social dependencies on Decision-Making. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haim, G., Gal, Y., Kraus, S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). A cultural sensitive agent for Human–Computer negotiation. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hajaj, C., Hazon, N., Sarne, D., & Elmalech, A. (2013). Search more, disclose less. In Proceedings of AAAI.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hindriks, K., & Tykhonov, D. (2008). Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In Proceedings of AAMAS, (pp. 331–338).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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), 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin, R., & Kraus, S. (2010). Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans? Communications of the ACM, 53(1), 78–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (1992). An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 60(4), 803–836.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1999). A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oshrat, Y., Lin, R., & Kraus, S. (2009). Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pasquier, P., Hollands, R., Dignum, F., Rahwan, I., & Sonenberg, L. (2007). An empirical study of interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of ICEC.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peled, N., Gal, Y., & Kraus, S. (2011). A study of computational and human strategies in revelation games. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosenfeld, A., & Kraus, S. (2012). Modeling agents based on aspiration adaptation theory. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 24(2), 221–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sarne, D., Elmalech, A., Grosz, B. J., & Geva, M. (2011). Less is more: Restructuring decisions to improve agent search. In Proceedings of AAMAS.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spence, A. M. (1974). Market signaling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sycara, K. P. (1990). Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory and decision, 28(3), 203–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (1996). Human cooperation in the simultaneous and the alternating prisoner’s dilemma. PNAS, 93(7), 2686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noam Peled
    • 1
  • Ya’akov (Kobi) Gal
    • 2
  • Sarit Kraus
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Gonda Brain Research CenterBar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Information Systems EngineeringBen-Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceBar-Ilan UniversityRamat GanIsrael
  4. 4.Institute of Advanced Computer StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations