Advertisement

An Introduction to the Pocket Negotiator: A General Purpose Negotiation Support System

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Reyhan Aydoğan
  • Tim Baarslag
  • Joost Broekens
  • Christian A. Detweiler
  • Koen V. Hindriks
  • Alina Huldtgren
  • Wouter Pasman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10207)

Abstract

The Pocket Negotiator (PN) is a negotiation support system developed at TU Delft as a tool for supporting people in bilateral negotiations over multi-issue negotiation problems in arbitrary domains. Users are supported in setting their preferences, estimating those of their opponent, during the bidding phase and sealing the deal. We describe the overall architecture, the essentials of the underlying techniques, the form that support takes during the negotiation phases, and we share evidence of the effectiveness of the Pocket Negotiator.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the Dutch Technology Foundation STW, applied science division of NWO and the Technology Program of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. It is part of the Pocket Negotiator project with grant number VIVI-project 08075.

References

  1. 1.
    An, B., Lesser, V.R.: Yushu: a heuristic-based agent for automated negotiating competition. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 383, pp. 145–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aydoğan, R., Yolum, P.: Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning. Auton. Agents Multiagent Syst. 24(1), 104–140 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baarslag, T.: What to bid and when to stop. Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, September 2014Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baarslag, T., Dirkzwager, A.S., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: The significance of bidding, accepting and opponent modeling in automated negotiation. In: 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, vol. 263, pp. 27–32 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baarslag, T., Fujita, K., Gerding, E.H., Hindriks, K., Ito, T., Jennings, N.R., Jonker, C., Kraus, S., Lin, R., Robu, V., Williams, C.R.: Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artif. Intell. 198, 73–103 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baarslag, T., Gerding, E.H., Aydogan, R., Schraefel, M.C.: Optimal negotiation decision functions in time-sensitive domains. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), WI-IAT 2015, vol. 1, pp. 190–197. IEEE Computer Society (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baarslag, T., Hendrikx, M., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.: Measuring the performance of online opponent models in automated bilateral negotiation. In: Thielscher, M., Zhang, D. (eds.) AI 2012. LNCS, vol. 7691, pp. 1–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35101-3_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baarslag, T., Hendrikx, M.J., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Predicting the performance of opponent models in automated negotiation. In: 2013 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence (WI) and Intelligent Agent Technologies (IAT), vol. 2, pp. 59–66 November 2013Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baarslag, T., Hendrikx, M.J., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: a comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 30(5), 849–898 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations. Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 113–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K.V.: Accepting optimally in automated negotiation with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, AAMAS 2013, pp. 715–722. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K.V., Hendrikx, M.J., Dirkzwager, A.S., Jonker, C.M.: Decoupling negotiating agents to explore the space of negotiation strategies. In: Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Ito, T., Zhang, M., Bai, Q., Fujita, K. (eds.) Novel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 535, pp. 61–83. Springer, Tokyo (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Effective acceptance conditions in real-time automated negotiation. Decis. Support Syst. 60, 68–77 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C., Treur, J.: Experiments in human multi-issue negotiation: analysis and support. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 671–678. IEEE Computer Society Press, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Robu, V., Treur, J.: A system for analysis of multi-issue negotiation. In: Unland, R., Calisti, M., Klusch, M. (eds.) Software Agent-Based Applications, Platforms and Development Kits. Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technologies. Birkhäuser, Basel (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brazier, F., Cornelissen, F., Jonker, C., Treur, J.: Compositional design and verification of a multi-agent system for one-to-many negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. ICMAS 1998, pp. 49–56. IEEE Computer Society Press, Paris (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chen, S., Weiss, G.: OMAC: a discrete wavelet transformation based negotiation agent. In: Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Ito, T., Zhang, M., Bai, Q., Fujita, K. (eds.) Novel Insights in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 535, pp. 187–196. Springer, Tokyo (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Şerban, L.D., Silaghi, G.C., Litan, C.M.: AgentFSEGA - time constrained reasoning model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. Series of Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 159–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot. Auton. Syst. 24(3–4), 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fisher, R., Shapiro, D.: Beyond Reason: Using Emotions as You Negotiate. Random House Business Books, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B. (eds.): Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books, London (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P.J., Borning, A.: Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems, pp. 348–372 (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    K, G., Lai, H.: Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: an overview. Group Decis. Negot. 16, 553–586 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gratch, J., DeVault, D., Lucas, G.: The benefits of virtual humans for teaching negotiation. In: Traum, D., Swartout, W., Khooshabeh, P., Kopp, S., Scherer, S., Leuski, A. (eds.) IVA 2016. LNCS, vol. 10011, pp. 283–294. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-47665-0_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hao, J., Leung, H.: ABiNeS: an adaptive bilateral negotiating strategy over multiple items. In: Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, WI-IAT 2012, vol. 2, pp. 95–102. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, December 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hindriks, K.V., Tykhonov, D.: Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2008, vol. 1, pp. 331–338. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jonker, C., Treur, J.: An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Joint Conference on AI, IJCAI 2001, pp. 1195–1201. Morgan Kaufman (2001)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kawaguchi, S., Fujita, K., Ito, T.: AgentK: compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotiating agents. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 383, pp. 137–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kersten, G.E., Kowalczyk, R., Lai, H., Neumann, D., Chhetri, M.B.: Shaman: Software and Human Agents in Multiattribute Auctions and Negotiations, pp. 116–149. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kersten, G.E., Lo, G.: Aspire: an integrated negotiation support system and software agents for e-business negotiation. Int. J. Internet Enterp. Manag. 1(3), 293–315 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Baarslag, T., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M.: Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Comput. Intell. 30(1), 48–70 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mell, J., Gratch, J.: IAGO: interactive arbitration guide online. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1510–1512. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Singapore, May 2016Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pommeranz, A., Broekens, J., Wiggers, P., Brinkman, W.-P., Jonker, C.M.: Designing interfaces for explicit preference elicitation: a user-centered investigation of preference representation and elicitation process. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 22(4), 357–397 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pommeranz, A., Wiggers, P., Brinkman, W.-P., Jonker, C.M.: Social acceptance of negotiation support systems: scenario-based exploration with focus groups and online survey. Cogn. Technol. Work 14(4), 299–317 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pommeranz, A., Wiggers, P., Jonker, C.M.: Towards compositional design and evaluation of preference elicitation interfaces. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCD 2011. LNCS, vol. 6776, pp. 586–596. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21753-1_65 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Raiffa, H.: The Art and Science of Negotiation, How to Resolve Conflicts and get the best out of Bargaining. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thompson, L.: The Heart and Mind of the Negotiator. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2005)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vahidov, R., Kersten, G., Saade, R.: An experimental study of software agent negotiations with humans. Decis. Support Syst. 66, 135–145 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Williams, C.R., Robu, V.E., Gerding, H., Jennings, N.R.: LAMhaggler: a negotiation agent for complex environments. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. Studies in Computational Intelligence, pp. 151–158. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 2
  • Tim Baarslag
    • 3
  • Joost Broekens
    • 1
  • Christian A. Detweiler
    • 5
  • Koen V. Hindriks
    • 1
  • Alina Huldtgren
    • 4
  • Wouter Pasman
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University of DelftDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Özyeğin UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Centrum Wiskunde & InformaticaAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Technical University of EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.De Haagse HogeschoolDen HaagThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations