Cooperative Meeting Scheduling among Agents Based on Multiple Negotiations

  • Toramatsu Shintani
  • Takayuki Ito
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2172)

Abstract

We present a method for multi-agent negotiation for implementing a distributed meeting scheduler. In this system, an agent is assigned to an user who plans to schedule private events. Each agent negotiates with other agents in order to make a public schedule by referring user’s private schedules and preferences. We propose a new persuasion method for multi-agent negotiation for reflecting private preferences. We call this method the Multiple Negotiations. The multiple negotiations can effectively facilitate reaching an agreement among agents. In the multiple negotiations, agents conduct all combinations of negotiation in which each agent has an opportunity for persuading the others. In addition, we propose an effective preference revision mechanism based on the multi attribute utility theory. The mechanism facilitates negotiation among agents and improves quality of the multiple negotiations. We have implemented a distributed meeting scheduler to show how effectively the multiple negotiations can be used. The result shows that the multiple negotiations are effective in supporting group decision-making for scheduling a meeting.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    M. Diehl and W. Stroebe. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61:392–403, 1991. 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    N. Fukuta, T. Ito, and T. Shintani. MiLog: A Mobile Agent Framework for Implementing Intelligent Information Agents with Logic Programming, In Proc. of the 1st Pacific Rim International Workshop on Intelligent Information Agents(PRIIA’2000), pp.113–123, 2000. 98Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. Garrido and K. Sycara. Multi-agent meeting scheduling: Preliminary experiment results. In Proc. of 2nd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems(ICMAS-96), pages 95–102. AAAI Press, 1996. 96Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Haynes, S. Sen, N. Arora, and R. Nadella. An automated meeting scheduling system that utilize user preferences. In Proc. of The 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents’97), pages 308–315, 1997. 96Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Ito and T. Shintani. Persuasion among Agents: An approach to Implementing a Group Decision Support System based on Multi-Agent Negotiation. In Proc. of the 15th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-97), pages 592–597, 1997. 95, 100, 104Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Ito and T. Shintani. On a Mechanism of Persuasion Among Agents for Group Choice Design Supprt Systems. In Systems and Computers in Japan, Vol.29, No.5, pages 20–28, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1998. 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993. 96Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    K. Kusano. Negotiation As a Game. Maruzen Library 130, 1994. in Japanese. 95Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennigs. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261–292, 1998. 96MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. S. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin. Rules of Encounter. The MIT Press, 1995. 95Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Saaty. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw Hill, 1980. 96Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Sen and E. H. Durfee. A formal study of distributed meeting scheduling. Group Decision and Negotiation, pages 265–289, 1998. 96Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    T. Shintani, T. Ito, and K. Sycara. Multiple negotiations among agents for a distributed meeting scheduler. In Proc. of the 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-2000), pages 435–436, 2000. 96Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C. Sierra, N. R. Jennings, P. Noriega, and M. Wooldridge. A framewok for argumentation-based negotiation. In M. P. Sigh, A. Rao, and M. J. Wooldridge, editors, Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages (ATAL-97), LNAI 1365, pages 177–192, 1997. 96Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. P. Sycara. Multiagent systems. AI Magazine, 19(2):79–92, 1998. 96Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    T. Tsuruta and T. Shintani. Scheduling meetings using distributed valued constraint satisfaction algorithm. In Proc. of the 14th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2000), pages 383–387, 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toramatsu Shintani
    • 1
  • Takayuki Ito
    • 2
  1. 1.Intelligence and Computer ScienceNagoya Institute of TechnologyNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Center for Knowledge ScienceJapan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyNomi-gunJapan

Personalised recommendations