Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 5–45 | Cite as

An Extended Multi-Agent Negotiation Protocol

  • Samir Aknine
  • Suzanne Pinson
  • Melvin F. Shakun


This article presents a task allocation protocol that is efficient in time and tolerates crash failures in multi-agent systems. The protocol is an extension of the negotiation protocol defined by Smith and Davis [25, 26] for task allocation. Our extension of the Contract Net Protocol (1) enables an agent to manage several negotiation processes in parallel; (2) optimizes the length of the negotiation processes among agents; (3) reduces the contractors' decommitment situations; (4) enables the detection of failures of an agent participating in a negotiation process and prevents a negotiation process with blocked agents.

negotiation protocol contract net protocol multi-agent systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. Aknine, S. Pinson, and M. F. Shakun, “New multi-agent models for multiple negotiations,” French Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Aknine and S. Pinson, “Reliable algorithms for multi-agent task allocation,” 8th International Conference on Intelligence Systems, Colorado, USA, June 24-26, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Aknine, “Issues in cooperative systems: Extending the contract net protocol,” IEEE Joint Conference on the Science and Technology of Intelligent Systems, Maryland USA, September 14-17, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Aknine and S. Pinson, “Un nouveau protocole de négociation flexible pour la coopération multi-agent,” in M. P. Gleizes and P. Marcenac, (eds.), Ingénierie des Systèmes Multi-agents, Hermès, pp. 165–174, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Aknine, “Strategies and behaviors of agents in multi-phased negotiations,” Third International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies, EC-WEB with DEXA, LNCS, Springer-Verlag, September 2-6, Aix-en-Provence, France, 2002.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Andersson and T. Sandholm, “Time-Quality Tradeoffs in reallocative Negotiation with Combinatorial Contract Types,” AAAI, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Andersson and T. Sandholm, “Contract type sequencing for reallocative negotiation,” International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, ICDCS, 2000.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Andersson and T. Sandholm, “Leveled commitment contracting among individually rational agents,” International Conference on Multi-agent Systems, Paris, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Bouron, “Structures de Communication et d'Organisation pour la Coopération dans un Univers Multiagent,” Ph.D. Thesis, Université Paris 6, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    T. D. Chandra and S. Toueg, “Unreliable failures detectors for reliable distributed systems,” Journal of the ACM, vol. 43, no. 2, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. B. Dantzig, “All shortest routes in a graph,” On Theory of Graphs, Rome, Gordon, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E. H. Durfee and V. R. Lesser, “Partial global planning: A coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation,” IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 21, no. 5, 1987.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Fallah Seghrouchni, A. et Haddad, S. ''A coordination algorithm for multi-agent systems'', Agents Breaking Away, European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-agent World, Maamaw'96, The Netherlands, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Fischer, J. P. Muller, and M. Pischel, “Scheduling an application domain for DAI,” Applied Artificial Intelligence, An International Journal, vol. 10, pp. 1–33, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Guerraoui and A. Schiper, “Consensus service: A modular approach for building agreement protocols in distributed systems,” 26th IEEE Symposium on FTCS, Sendai, Japan, June 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    K. Hamdouni, M-N negotiation models for electronic commerce, Master Thesis (French Language), Paris-Dauphine University, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    N. R. Jennings, “Controlling cooperative problem solving in industrial multi-agent systems using joint intentions,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 75, no. 2, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. C. Lee, “Progressive multi-agent negotiation,” Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Raynal, “Revisiting the non-blocking atomic commitment problem in distributed data management systems,” Ingénierie des Systèmes d'Information, vol. 5, no. 6, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Sandholm, “An Implementation of the contract net protocol based on marginal cost calculations,” 11th National Conf. On AI, AAAI, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Sandholm and V. Lesser, “Issues in automated negotiation and electronic commerce: Extending the contract net framework,” ICMAS-95, First International Conference on Multi-agent Systems, MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    T. Sandholm and V. Lesser, “Advantages of a leveled commitment contracting protocol,” AAAI'96, National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Portland, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    T. Sandholm, S. Sikka, and S. Norden, “Algorithms for optimizing leveled commitment contracts,” International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 535–540, 1999.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    O. Shehory and S. Kraus, “Methods for task allocation via coalition formation,” Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier Science, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. G. Smith, “The Contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem-solver,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 12, 1980.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. G. Smith and R. Davis, “Frameworks for co-operation in distributed problem solving,” IEEE Transaction on System, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 11, no. 1, 1981.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    G. Weiss, (ed.), Multiagent Systems: A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence, MIT Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samir Aknine
    • 1
  • Suzanne Pinson
    • 2
  • Melvin F. Shakun
    • 3
  1. 1.LIP6Université Paris 6, 8PARIS Cedex 15France
  2. 2.LAMSADEUniversité Paris DauphineParis 16France
  3. 3.Leonard, N. Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations