Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

AutoMed: an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present AutoMed, an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiation under time constraints. AutoMed elicits the negotiators preferences and analyzes them. It monitors the negotiations and proposes possible solutions for resolving the conflict. We conducted experiments in a simulated environment. The results show that negotiations mediated by AutoMed are concluded significantly faster than non-mediated ones and without any of the negotiators opting out. Furthermore, the subjects in the mediated negotiations are more satisfied with the resolutions than the subjects in the non-mediated negotiations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bellucci, E., & Zeleznikow, J. (2001). Family_winner: A computerised negotiation support system which advises upon australian family law. In ISDSS2001 (pp. 74–85). London.

  2. Blum A., Jackson J., Sandholm T., Zinkevich M. (2004) Preference elicitation and query learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 5: 649–667

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonnet V., Boudaoud K., Gagnebin M., Harms J., Shultz T. (2004) Online dispute resolution systems as web services. ICFAI Journal of Alternative Dispute Resolution, 3: 57–74

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R., Geib, C., & Poole, D. (1997). A constraint-based approach to preference elicitation and decision making. In AAAI Spring Symposium (pp. 19–28).

  5. Boutilier, C., Brafman, R. I., Hoos, H. H., & Poole, D. (1999). Reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. In UAI 1999 (pp. 71–80).

  6. Boutilier C., Brafman R., Domshlak C., Hoos H. H., Poole D. (2004) Preference-based constrained optimization with cp-nets. Computational Intelligence 20(2): 137–157

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Bratu, M., Andreoli, J. M., Boissier, O., & Castellani, S. (2002). A software infrastructure for negotiation within inter-organisational alliances. In J. A. Padget, O. Shehory, D. C. Parkes, N. M. Sadeh & W. E. Walsh (Eds.), Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce IV (AMEC-IV): Designing mechanisms and systems. Proceedings of the Workshop held at the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-02), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2531 (pp. 161–179). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

  8. Chajewska, U., Getoor, L., Norman, J., & Shahar, Y. (1998). Utility elicitation as a classification problem. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 79–88).

  9. Chalamish, M. (2008). Automated agents for mediated negotiations and simulation. PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department, Bar Ilan University, Israel.

  10. eBay’s mediation room. http://www.themediationroom.com/.

  11. Fisher R., Ury W. (1981) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Houghtonn Mifflinn, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gelfand, M., & Weingart, L. (June 2010). Combining computational and social science approaches to negotiation: Opportunities and challenges. In IACM Symposium, Boston, USA.

  13. Gordon, T. F., & Karacapilidis, N. (1997). The Zeno argumentation framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on AI and Law (pp. 10–18). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  14. Gordon, T. F., Karacapilidis, N., Voss, H., & Zauke, A. (1997). Computer-mediated cooperative spatial planning. In H. Timmermans (Ed.), Decision support systems in urban planning (pp. 299–309). London: E and F. N. Spon.

  15. Hattotuwa, S. Y. (Spring 2006). Transforming landscapes: Forging new ODR systems with a human face. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(3, Special Issue on Online Dispute Resolution), 371–382.

  16. Karacapilidis N., Papadias D. (2001) Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Information Systems 26(4): 259–277

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Karacapilidis N., Papadias D., Gordon T., Voss H. (1997) Collaborative environmental planning with GeoMed. European Journal of Operational Research 102(2): 335–346

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Katsh, E., & Gaitenby, A. (2003). Technology as the “fourth party”. In Proceedings of the UNECE Forum on ODR. An introductory talk.

  19. Katsh E., Rifkin J. (2001) Online dispute resolution: Resolving disputes in cyberspace. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  20. Katsh E., Wing L. (2006) Ten years of online dispute resolution (ODR): Looking at the past and constructing the future. University of Toledo Law Review 38(1): 101–126

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kaufmann-Kohler G., Schultz T. (2004) Conflict resolution in the age of the internet online dispute resolution: Challenges for contemporary justice. Kluwer Law International, Hague

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kraus S. (2001) Strategic negotiation in multi-agent environments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lai S. K. (2001) An empirical study of equivalence judgments vs. ratio judgments in decision analysis. Decision Sciences 32(2): 277–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin, R., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., & Barry, J. (2006). An automated agent for bilateral negotiation with bounded rational agents with incomplete information. In Proc. of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 270–274). Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006.

  25. Lin R., Kraus S., Wilkenfeld J., Barry J. (2008) Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence 172(6–7): 823–851

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Myerson R. (1990) Game theory. Analysis of conflict. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Nash J. F. (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21: 128–140

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Oliva E., McBurney P., Omicini A., Viroli M. (2010) Argumentation and artifacts for negotiation support. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence 4(S10): 90–117

    Google Scholar 

  29. Oliva, E., Viroli, M., Omicini, A., & McBurney, P. (2008). Argumentation and artifact for dialog support. In I. Rahwan & P. Moraitis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2008), Lisbon, Portugal.

  30. Osborne M., Rubinstein A. (1994) A course in game theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Öztürk, M., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2006). Preference representation with 3-points intervals. In Proc. of the 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 417–421). Riva del Garda, Italy, August 2006.

  32. Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2003–2004). Balancing the scales: The ford-firestone case, the internet, and the future dispute resolution landscape. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 6, 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Royalty, J., Williams, D., Holland, R., Goldsmith, J., & Dekhtyar, A. (2002). Poet: The online preference elicitation tool. In AAAI Workshop on Preferences in AI and CP: A Symbolic Approach, July 2002.

  34. Sánchez-Antón, M. (1996). Rationality of bargaining solutions. Alicante, Spain: University of Alicante (Mimeo).

  35. Sycara K. (1988) Utility theory in conflict resolution. Annals of Operations Research 12: 65–84

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Sycara, K. (Oct 1991). Problem restructuring in negotiation. Management Science, 37(10), 1248–1268.

  37. Thiessen, E. M., & McMahon, J. P. Jr (1999). Beyond win–win in cyberspace. ADR in Cyberspace Symposium. http://www.smartsettle.com/.

  38. Thompson, L. Student project scenario. http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/drrc/teaching/deal_making.htm.

  39. Thomson W. (1987) Monotonicity of bargaining solutions with respect to the disagreement point. Journal of Economic Theory 42(1): 50–58

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Touval S., Zartman I. W. (1985) International mediation in theory and practice. Westview Press, Boulder, CO

    Google Scholar 

  41. Turel O., Yuan Y. (2007) Online dispute resolution services for electronic markets: a user centric research agenda. International Journal of Electronic Business 5(6): 590–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wellman, M. P., & Doyle, J. (1991). Preferential semantics for goals. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 698–703).

  43. Wong S. K. M., Lingras P. (1994) Representation of qualitative user preference by quantitative belief functions. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 6(1): 72–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yoon K. P., Hwang C.-L. (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  45. Young H. (1994) Equity in theory and practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  46. Zartman I. W., Touval S. (1996) Managing global chaos, chapter international mediation in the post-cold war era. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zinkevich, M. A., Blum, A., & Sandholm, T. (2003). On polynomial-time preference elicitation with value queries. In Proceedings 4th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-2003) San Diego, CA, June 9–12, pp. 176–185.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Ashkelon Academic College, Ashkelon, 78211, Israel

    Michal Chalamish

  2. Department of Computer Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, 52900, Israel

    Sarit Kraus

  3. Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA

    Sarit Kraus

Authors
  1. Michal Chalamish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarit Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarit Kraus.

Additional information

Preliminary results of this work have been presented in ICCCD 2009.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chalamish, M., Kraus, S. AutoMed: an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 24, 536–564 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9165-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9165-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation