Applied Intelligence

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 600–619 | Cite as

An augmented EDA with dynamic diversity control and local neighborhood search for coevolution of optimal negotiation strategies

Article

Abstract

In this paper, we present an estimation of distribution algorithm (EDA) augmented with enhanced dynamic diversity controlling and local improvement methods to solve competitive coevolution problems for agent-based automated negotiations. Since optimal negotiation strategies ensure that interacting agents negotiate optimally, finding such strategies—particularly, for the agents having incomplete information about their opponents—is an important and challenging issue to support agent-based automated negotiation systems. To address this issue, we consider the problem of finding optimal negotiation strategies for a bilateral negotiation between self-interested agents with incomplete information through an EDA-based coevolution mechanism. Due to the competitive nature of the agents, EDAs should be able to deal with competitive coevolution based on two asymmetric populations each consisting of self-interested agents. However, finding optimal negotiation solutions via coevolutionary learning using conventional EDAs is difficult because the EDAs suffer from premature convergence and their search capability deteriorates during coevolution. To solve these problems, even though we have previously devised the dynamic diversity controlling EDA (D2C-EDA), which is mainly characterized by a diversification and refinement (DR) procedure, D2C-EDA suffers from the population reinitialization problem that leads to a computational overhead. To reduce the computational overhead and to achieve further improvements in terms of solution accuracy, we have devised an improved D2C-EDA (ID2C-EDA) by adopting an enhanced DR procedure and a local neighborhood search (LNS) method. Favorable empirical results support the effectiveness of the proposed ID2C-EDA compared to conventional and the other proposed EDAs. Furthermore, ID2C-EDA finds solutions very close to the optimum.

Keywords

Negotiation agents Optimal negotiation strategy Population diversity Estimation of distribution algorithms Dynamic diversity control 

References

  1. 1.
    Bengoetxea E, Larrañaga P, Bloch I, Perchant A (2001) Estimation of distribution algorithms: a new evolutionary computation approach for graph matching problems. In: Lect Notes Comput Sc, vol 2134. Springer, Berlin, pp 454–468 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brazier FMT, Cornelissen F, Gustavsson R, Jonker CM, Lindeberg O, Polak B, Treur J (2004) Compositional verification of a multi-agent system for one-to-many negotiation. Appl Intell 20(2):95–117 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chao K-M, Chen J-H, Gatward R (2002) Negotiating agents in a market-oriented grid. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM international symposium on cluster computing and the grid, p 436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deb K, Sindhya K, Okabe T (2007) Self-adaptive simulated binary crossover for real-parameter optimization. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 1187–1194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erus G, Polat F (2007) A layered approach to learning coordination knowledge in multiagent environments. Appl Intell 27(3):249–267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot Auton Syst 24(3–4):59–182 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fatima S, Wooldridge MJ, Jennings NR (2002) Optimal negotiation strategies for agents with incomplete information. In: Lect Notes Artif Int, vol 2333. Springer, Berlin, pp 377–392 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fogel DB (1994) An introduction to simulated evolutionary optimization. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 5(1):3–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gwak J, Sim KM (2010) Novel dynamic diversity controlling EDA and its application to automated bilateral negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE international conference on bio-inspired computing: theories and applications, pp 536–544 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gwak J, Sim KM (2010) Co-evolving best response strategies for P-S-Optimizing negotiation using evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2010 international multiconference of engineers and comput scientists. Lecture notes in engineering and computer science. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–18 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gwak J, Sim KM (2011) Coevolving negotiation strategies for p-s-optimizing agents. In: Ao S-I, Castillo O, Huang X (eds) Intelligent control and computer engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 119–135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gwak J, Sim KM, Zhang M (2010) Finding near-optimal strategies for negotiation with incomplete information using a diversity controlling EDA. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on supply chain management and information systems, pp 571–577 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Isern D, Moreno A, Sánchez D, Hajnal Á, Pedone G, Varga LZ (2011) Agent-based execution of personalised home care treatments. Appl Intell 34(2):155–180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jennings NR, Faratin P, Lomuscio AR, Parsons S, Wooldridge MJ, Sierra C (2001) Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decis Negot 10:199–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kolomvatsos K, Hadjiefthymiades S (2012) Buyer behavior adaptation based on a fuzzy logic controller and prediction techniques. Fuzzy Sets Syst 189:30–52 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kowalczyk R (2002) Fuzzy e-negotiation agents. Soft Comput 6(5):337–347 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lai KR, Lin MW, Yu TJ (2009) Learning opponent’s beliefs via fuzzy constraint-directed approach to make effective agent negotiation. Appl Intell 33(2):232–246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larrañaga P, Lozano ZA (2002) Estimation of distribution algorithms: a new tool for evolutionary computation. Kluwer, Norwell MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larrañaga P, Etxeberria R, Lozano JA, Peña JM (1999) Optimization by learning and simulation of Bayesian and Gaussian networks. Technical Report. EHU-KZAA-IK-4/99, University of the Basque Country Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leung Y, Gao Y, Xu Z-B (1997) Degree of population diversity—a perspective on premature convergence in genetic algorithms and its Markov chain analysis. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 8:1165–1176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matos N, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Determining successful negotiation strategies: an evolutionary approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on multi-agent systems, pp 182–189 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miconi T (2009) Why coevolution doesn’t “work”: superiority and progress in coevolution. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on genetic programming, pp 49–60 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mittal S, Deb K (2009) Optimal strategies of the iterated prisoner’s dilemma problem for multiple conflicting objectives. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 13(3):554–565 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nolfi S, Floreano D (1998) Coevolving predator and prey robots: do “arms races” arise in artificial evolution? Artif Life 4:311–335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oliver JR (1996) A machine-learning approach to automated negotiation and prospects for electronic commerce. J Manag Inf Syst 13:83–112 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pelikan M, Goldberg DE, Lobo FG (2002) A survey of optimization by building and using probabilistic models. Comput Optim Appl 21:5–20 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pollack JB, Blair AD (1998) Co-evolution in the successful learning of backgammon strategy. Mach Learn 32(3):225–240 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rosenschein JS, Zlotkin G (1994) Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rubinstein A (1985) A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica 53(5):1151–1172 MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sim KM (2002) A market driven model for designing negotiation agents. Comput Intell 18(4):618–637 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sim KM (2005) Equilibria, prudent compromises,and the “waiting” game. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part B, Cybern 35(4):712–724 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sim KM (2008) An evolutionary approach for p-s-optimizing negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1364–1371 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sim KM, An B (2009) Evolving best-response strategies for market-driven agents using aggregative fitness GA. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part C, Appl Rev 39(3):284–298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sim KM, Choi CY (2003) Agents that react to changing market situations. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part B, Cybern 33(2):188–201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sim KM, Guo Y, Shi B (2007) Adaptive bargaining agents that negotiate optimally and rapidly. In: Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE congress on evolutionary computation, pp 1007–1014 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sim KM, Guo Y, Shi B (2009) BLGAN: Bayesian learning and genetic algorithm for supporting negotiation with incomplete information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern, Part B, Cybern 39(1):198–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tutkun N (2009) Optimization of multimodal continuous functions using a new crossover for the real-coded genetic algorithms. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8172–8177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ursem RK (2002) Diversity-guided evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature, pp 462–474 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ursem RK (2003) Model for evolutionary algorithms and their applications in system identification and control optimization. PhD dissertation, University of Aarhus Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wang X, Shen X, Georganas ND (2006) A fuzzy logic based intelligent negotiation agent (FINA) in ecommerce. In: Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Canadian conference on electrical and computer engineering, pp 276–279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information and MechatronicsGwangju Institute of Science and TechnologyGwangjuRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.School of ComputingUniversity of KentChathamUK

Personalised recommendations