A Machine Learning Approach for Mechanism Selection in Complex Negotiations
- 109 Downloads
Automated negotiation mechanisms can be helpful in contexts where users want to reach mutually satisfactory agreements about issues of shared interest, especially for complex problems with many interdependent issues. A variety of automated negotiation mechanisms have been proposed in the literature. The effectiveness of those mechanisms, however, may depend on the characteristics of the underlying negotiation problem (e.g. on the complexity of participant’s utility functions, as well as the degree of conflict between participants). While one mechanism may be a good choice for a negotiation problem, it may be a poor choice for another. In this paper, we pursue the problem of selecting the most effective negotiation mechanism given a particular problem by (1) defining a set of scenario metrics to capture the relevant features of negotiation problems, (2) evaluating the performance of a range of negotiation mechanisms on a diverse test suite of negotiation scenarios, (3) applying machine learning techniques to identify which mechanisms work best with which scenarios, and (4) demonstrating that using these classification rules for mechanism selection enables significantly better negotiation performance than any single mechanism alone.
KeywordsAutomated negotiation mechanism selection scenario metrics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
This work was supported by the ITEA M2MGrids Project, grant number ITEA141011, and by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness grants TIN2016-80622-P (AEI/FEDER, UE) and TIN2014-61627-EXP. Many thanks to Mehmet Gönen for his support on machine learning techniques.
- Aydoğan, R., Festen, D., Hindriks, K. & Jonker, C. M. (2017). Alternating offers protocol for multilateral negotiation. In K. Fujita, Q. Bai, T. Ito, M. Zhang, F. Ren, R. Aydoğan, & R. Hadfi (eds), Modern Approaches to Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, pp. 153–167, Springer.Google Scholar
- Aydoğan, R., Hindriks, K. & Jonker, C. (2014). Multilateral mediated negotiation protocols with feedback. In I. Marsa-Maestre, M. A. Lopez-Carmona, T. Ito, M. Zhang, Q. Bai, & K. Fujita (eds), Novel Insights in Agent based Complex Automated Negotiation, Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 43–59, Springer.Google Scholar
- Chen, S., Ammar, H., Tuyls, K. & Weiss, G. (2012). Transfer learning for bilateral multi-issue negotiation, In Proceedings of the 24th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC), pp. 59–66, 2012.Google Scholar
- Guerri, A. & Milano, M. (2004). Learning techniques for automatic algorithm portfolio selection, In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 475–479, 2004.Google Scholar
- Ito, T. & Klein, M. (2009). A consensus optimization mechanism among agents based on genetic algorithm for multi-issue negotiation problems, In Proceedings of Joint Agent Workshops and Symposium (JAWS), pp. 286–293, 2009.Google Scholar
- Ito, T., Hattori, H. & Klein, M. (2007). Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1347–1352, 2007.Google Scholar
- Jonker, C. M., Aydogan, R., Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Ito, T. & Hindiks, K. (2017). Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC), In Proceedings of the Thirty-First AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17), pp. 5070–5072, 2017.Google Scholar
- K., V. V., Fogarty, T. C. & Miller, J. F. (2003). Smoothness, ruggedness and neutrality of fitness landscapes: from theory to application. In Advances in Evolutionary Computing: 3–44, Springer.Google Scholar
- Leyton-Brown, K., Nudelman, E. & Shoham, Y. (2002). Learning the empirical hardness of optimization problems: The case of combinatorial auctions. International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming: 556–572, Springer.Google Scholar
- Leyton-Brown, K., Nudelman, E., Andrew, G., McFadden, J. & Shoham, Y. (2003). A portfolio approach to algorithm select, In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence, pp. 1542–1543. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Lin, R. (2004). Bilateral multi-issue contract negotiation for task redistribtion using a mediation service, In Proceedings of Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce VI.Google Scholar
- Marsa-Maestre, I., Klein, M., de la Hoz, E. & Lopez-Carmona, M. A. (2011). Negowiki: A set of community tools for the consistent comparison of negotiation approaches, In Proceedings of International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems 2011: 424–435, Springer.Google Scholar
- Peyman, F., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N. R. (1998). Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24(3): 159–182.Google Scholar
- Williams, C. R. R. V., Gerding, E. H. & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Negotiating concurrently with unknown opponents in complex, real-time domains. Proceedings of 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence: 834–839.Google Scholar
- Williams, C. R., Robu, V., Gerding, E. H. & Jennings, N. R. (2011). Using gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents, In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 432–438, AAAI Press.Google Scholar