Applied Intelligence

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 583–606 | Cite as

An adaptive approach for decision making tactics in automated negotiation

Article

Abstract

In this paper, an adaptive decision making approach of three families of tactics has been proposed for bilateral negotiation: the time dependent tactics, behavior dependent tactics, and time independent tactics. These tactics are more adaptive to the environment’s changes (reservation interval, time deadline, opponent behavior). The suggested time dependent tactics take advantage from round based time continuity and dynamics aspects (features) integrated in their modelling. For suggested behavior dependent tactics, a new formalization based on the percentage of change was introduced, which helps agents to be more prudent in the environments with incomplete information comparing to previous behavior dependent tactics suggested by Faratin et al. (Int. J. Robotics Auton. Syst. 24(3–4):159–182, 1998). Concerning the new family of tactics which are completely independent from time, the agents compute their offers based on their reservation interval. These tactics are useful when there is no time deadline and, in addition, when the behavior of opponent agents doesn’t follow any negotiation equilibrium. Moreover, new experimental measures are suggested which are more useful for final evaluation. The experiments conducted in this paper, prove the applicability of all three families of tactic.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence Negotiation Agent based automated negotiation Negotiation tactics 

References

  1. 1.
    Alberola JM, Garcia-Fornes A (2012) Resolving using a case-based reasoning approach for trading in sports betting markets. Appl Intell, September Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anumba CJ, Rena Z, Thorpea A, Ugwub OO, Newnham L (2003) Negotiation within a multi-agent system for the collaborative design of light industrial buildings. Adv Eng Softw 34:389–401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartolini C, Preist C, Jennings NR (2002) Architecting for reuse: a software framework for automated negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE 2002), Bologna, Italy. Springer LNCS, vol 2585, pp 88–100 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ephrati E, Rosenschein JS (1991) The Clarke tax as a consensus mechanism among automated agents. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, San Jose, California, pp 173–178 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Int J Robotics Auton Syst 24(3–4):159–182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (2002) Using similarity criteria to make issue tradeoffs in automated negotiations. Artif Intell 142(2):205–237 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geneserth M, Ketchpel R (1994) S.P. Software agents. Commun ACM 37(7):48–53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings NR, Parsons S, Sierra C, Faratin P (2000) Automated negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on the practical application of intelligent agents and multi-agent systems (PAAM-2000), Manchester, UK, pp 23–30 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jennings NR, Faratin P, Lomuscio AR, Parsons S, Sierra C, Wooldridge M (2001) Automated negotiation: prospects methods and challenges. Int J Group Decis Negot 10:199–215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang H (2007) From rational to emotional agents. PhD Thesis, University of South, Carolina Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kowalczyk R, Bui V (2003) On constraint-based reasoning in negotiation agents. In: Proc agent-mediated e-commerce III. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 2003, pp 31–46 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kraus S (1997) Negotiation and cooperation in multi-agent environments. Artif Intell 94(1–2):79–97 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kraus S (2000) Strategic negotiation in multi-agent environments. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kraus S (2001) Automated negotiation and decision making in multiagent environments. In: Mutli-agents systems and applications. Springer, New York, pp 150–172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kraus S, Hoz-Weiss P, Wilkenfeld J, Andersen DR, Pate A (2008) Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations. Artif Intell 172:1–18 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lai G, Sycara K (2009) A generic framework for automated multi-attribute negotiation. Group Decis Negot 18:169–187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee C-F, Chang P-L (2008) Evaluations of tactics for automated negotiations. Group Decis Negot 17(6):515–539 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lomuscio AR, Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (2000) Agent mediated electronic commerce. In: A European perspective, chapter a classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce. Springer, Berlin, pp 19–34 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Luo X, Jennings NR, Shadbolt N, Leung H-F, Lee JH-M (2003) A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artif Intell 148:53–102 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macías M, Guitart J (2010) Using resource-level information into nonadditive negotiation models for cloud market environments. In: 12th IEEE/IFIP network operations and management symposium (NOMS’10), Osaka, Japan, pp 325–332 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Madani K, Chohra A, Bahrammirzaee A, Kanzari D (2008) SISINE: a negotiation training dedicated multi-player role-playing platform using artificial intelligence skills. In: MASHS 2008 (modèles et apprentissages en sciences humaines et sociales) conférence bilingue, Créteil, France, 5–6 juin 2008 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Monteserin A, Amandi A (2010) Building user argumentative models. Appl Intell 32(1):131–145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moubaiddin A, Obeid N (2009) Partial information basis for agent-based collaborative dialogue. Appl Intell 30(2):142–167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahwan I, Kowalczyk R, Pham HH (2002) Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. Aust Comput Soc Commun 24(1):197–204 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ren Z, Anumba CJ, Ugwu OO (2005) Negotiation theories. In: Ugwu, Ren, Anumba (eds) Agents and multi-agent systems in construction, pp 87–101 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ros R, Sierra C (2006) A negotiation meta strategy combining trade-off and concession moves. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst, 12:163–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenschein JS, Zlotkin G (1994) Rules of encounter. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rubinstein A (1985) A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica 53:1151–1172 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Skylogiannis T, Antoniou G, Bassiliades N, Governatori G, Bikakis A (2007) DR-NEGOTIATE—a system for automated agent negotiation with defeasible logic-based strategies. Data Knowl Eng 63:362–380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Treur J (2011) A virtual human agent model with behavior based on feeling exhaustion. Appl Intell 35(3):469–482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vetter M, Pitsch S (2001) Towards a flexible trading process over the Internet. In: Proc agentlink. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1991, pp 148–162 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arash Bahrammirzaee
    • 1
  • Amine Chohra
    • 1
  • Kurosh Madani
    • 1
  1. 1.Signals, Images, and Intelligent Systems Laboratory (LISSI / EA 3956), Senart Institute of TechnologyParis-East University (UPEC)LieusaintFrance

Personalised recommendations