Opponent Modeling with Information Adaptation (OMIA) in Automated Negotiations
Opponent modeling is an important technique in automated negotiations. Many of the existing opponent modeling methods are focusing on predicting the opponent’s private information to improve the agent’s benefits. However, these modeling methods overlook an ability to improve the negotiation outcomes by adapting to different types of private information about the opponent when they are available beforehand. This availability may be provided by some prediction algorithms, or be prior knowledge of the agent. In this paper, we name the above ability as Information Adaptation, and propose a novel Opponent Modeling method with Information Adaptation (OMIA). Specifically, the future concessions of the opponent will firstly be learned based on the opponent’s historical offers. Then, an expected utility calculation function is introduced to adaptively guide the agent’s negotiation strategy by considering the availability and value of the opponent’s private information. The experimental results show that OMIA can adapt to different types of information, helping the agent reach agreements with the opponent and achieve higher utility values comparing to those which lack the information adaptation ability.
KeywordsAutomated negotiations Opponent modeling Information adaptation
This research is supported by a DECRA Project (DP140100007) from Australia Research Council (ARC), a UPA and an IPTA scholarships from University of Wollongong, Australia.
- 2.Baarslag, T., Hendrikx, M.J., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: A survey of opponent modeling techniques in automated negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 575–576. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2016)Google Scholar
- 3.Broekens, J., Jonker, C.M., Meyer, J.J.C.: Affective negotiation support systems. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. 2(2), 121–144 (2010)Google Scholar
- 5.Coehoorn, R.M., Jennings, N.R.: Learning on opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 59–68. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Multi-issue negotiation under time constraints. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 1, pp. 143–150. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
- 8.Gal, Y., van der Wilk, M., Rasmussen, C.E.: Distributed variational inference in sparse Gaussian process regression and latent variable models. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3257–3265 (2014)Google Scholar
- 13.Oshrat, Y., Lin, R., Kraus, S.: Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1, pp. 377–384. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (2009)Google Scholar
- 16.Williams, C.R., Robu, V., Gerding, E.H., Jennings, N.R.: Using Gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents (2011)Google Scholar
- 17.Yu, C., Ren, F., Zhang, M.: An adaptive bilateral negotiation model based on Bayesian learning. In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Matsuo, T. (eds.) Complex Automated Negotiations: Theories, Models, and Software Competitions. SCI, vol. 435, pp. 75–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30737-9_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar