A Heuristic Approach to P2P Negotiation

  • Stefania Costantini
  • Arianna Tocchio
  • Panagiota Tsintza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5056)

Abstract

In this paper, we present a formal and executable approach to automated multi-issue negotiation between competitive agents. In particular, this approach is based on reasoning in terms of projections in convex regions of admissible values and is an extension of previous work by Marco Cadoli in the area of proposal-based negotiation. Our goal is to develop a heuristic strategy to flexibly compute the offers and counter-offers so as to fulfill each agent’s objectives and minimize the number of agents’ interactions. The proposed algorithm aims at improving a fundamental parameter of the negotiation process: the interaction complexity in the average case.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Guttman, R.H., Moukas, A.G., Maes, P.: Agent-mediated electronic commerce: a survey. In: Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 13(2), pp. 147–159. Cambridge University Press, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guttman, R.H., Maes, P.: Cooperative vs. competitive multi-agent negotiations in retail electronic commerce. In: Klusch, M., Weiss, G. (eds.) CIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1435, pp. 135–147. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kowalczyk, R., Bui, V.: On constraint-based reasoning in e-negotiation agents. In: Proceedings of Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce III, Current Issues in Agent-Based Electronic Commerce Systems, London, UK, pp. 31–46. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozzano, M., Delzanno, G., Martelli, M., Mascardi, V., Zini, F.: Logic programming and multi-agent system: A synergic combination for applications and semantics. In: Logic Programming and Multi-Agent System: A Synergic Combination for Applications and Semantics, The Logic Programming Paradigm - A 25-Year Perspective, pp. 5–32. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Governatori, G., ter Hofstede, A.H., Oaks, P.: Defeasible logic for automated negotiation. In: Proceedings of CollECTeR, Deakin University (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yokoo, M., Durfee, E.H., Ishida, T., Kuwabara, K.: The distributed constraint satisfaction problem: Formalization and algorithms. Knowledge and Data Engineering 10(5), 673–685 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cadoli, M.: Proposal-based negotiation in convex regions. In: Proceedings of Cooperative Information Agents VII (CIA), pp. 93–108 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenwald, A.: The 2002 trading agent competition: an overview of agent strategies. AI Magazine 24(1), 83–91 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Optimal negotiation strategies for agents with incomplete information. In: Meyer, J.-J.C., Tambe, M. (eds.) ATAL 2001. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2333, pp. 53–68. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahwan, I., Sonenburg, L., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P.: Stratum: A methodology for designing heuristic agent negotiation strategies. International Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 21(6), 489–527 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gomes, A.R.: Valuations and dynamics of negotiations. Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Paper, 21–99 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T.: Expressive negotiation in settings with externalities. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 2005), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, pp. 255–260 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kazmer, D., Zhu, L., Hatch, D.: Process window derivation with an application to optical media manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 123(2), 301–311 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rahwan, I., Kowalczyk, R., Pham, H.H.: Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Australasian conference on Computer science (ACSC 2002), Darlinghurst, Australia, pp. 197–204. Australian Computer Society, Inc. (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matos, N., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Determining successful negotiation strategies: An evolutionary approach. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS 1998), Paris, France, pp. 182–189. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rahwan, I., McBurney, P., Sonenberg, L.: Towards a theory of negotiation strategy. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Game Theoretic and Decision Theoretic Agents (GTDT-2003), pp. 73–80 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lopes, F., Mamede, N.J., Novais, A.Q., Coelho, H.: Negotiation strategies for autonomous computational agents. In: Proceedings European Conference on AI (ECAI), pp. 38–42 (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wooldridge, M., Parson, S.: Languages for negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2000), pp. 393–397 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Somefun, K., Gerding, E., Bohte, S., La, H.: Automated negotiation and bundling of information goods. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on AgentMediated Electronic Commerce (AMEC V), Melbourne, Australia (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A., Tsintza, P.: Experimental evaluation of heuristic approach to p2p negotiation. A journal, draft available from the authors, preliminary version; In: Proc. of RCRA 2007, Intl. Workshop on experimantal evaluation of Algorithms for Solving Problems with Combinatorial Explosion, 2007 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A.: A logic programming language for multi-agent systems. In: Flesca, S., Greco, S., Leone, N., Ianni, G. (eds.) JELIA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2424, pp. 1–13. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A.: The dali logic programming agent-oriented language. In: Alferes, J.J., Leite, J.A. (eds.) JELIA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3229, pp. 685–688. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tocchio, A.: Multi-agent systems in computational logic. Ph.D. Thesis, Dipartimento di Informatica, Universitá degli Studi di L’Aquila (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A.: About declarative semantics of logic-based agent languages. In: Baldoni, M., Endriss, U., Omicini, A., Torroni, P. (eds.) DALT 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3904, pp. 106–123. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Costantini, S., Tocchio, A., Verticchio, A.: A game-theoretic operational semantics for the dali communication architecture. In: Proceedings of WOA 2004, Turin, Italy, pp. 13–21 (December 2004); ISBN 88-371-1533-4Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lloyd, J.W.: Foundations of Logic Programming, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (1987)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siegel, A.: A historical review of the isoperimetric theorem in 2-d, and its place in elementary plane geometry (2003), http://www.cs.nyu.edu/faculty/siegel/sciam.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefania Costantini
    • 1
  • Arianna Tocchio
    • 1
  • Panagiota Tsintza
    • 1
  1. 1.Dip. di InformaticaUniversità di L’Aquila, CoppitoL’AquilaItaly

Personalised recommendations