Advertisement

Improving Trade-Offs in Bilateral Negotiations under Complete and Incomplete Information Settings

  • Ivan Marsa-Maestre
  • Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona
  • Juan R. Velasco
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5357)

Abstract

A bilateral negotiation may be seen as an interaction between two agents with the goal of reaching an agreement over a given range of issues which usually involves solving a conflict of interests between the agents. Usually, the agents taking part in the negotiation will consider different issues to be the most important ones for satisfying their goals, which allows to make issue trade-offs to search for joint gains. In particular, similarity criteria have been used to perform trade-offs in bilateral negotiations. This approach behaves differently depending on the knowledge each agent has about its counterpart, and depending on the order in which the different issues are considered. In this paper we propose two new approaches to improve the search for win-win solutions, one for complete information settings and the other for incomplete information settings. The experimental evaluation shows how our proposals improve the efficiency and optimality of the negotiation process over previous approaches.

Keywords

Negotiation Process Random Permutation Utility Gain Child Generation Bilateral Negotiation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R., Marsa-Maestre, I.: The agents’ attitudes in fuzzy constraint based automated purchase negotiations. In: Burkhard, H.-D., Lindemann, G., Verbrugge, R., Varga, L.Z. (eds.) CEEMAS 2007. LNCS, vol. 4696, pp. 246–255. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., Bar-Yam, Y.: Protocols for negotiating complex contracts. IEEE Intelligent Systems 18(6), 32–38 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ito, T., Klein, M., Hattori, H.: A multi-issue negotiation protocol among agents with nonlinear utility functions. Multiagent and Grid Systems 4(1), 67–83Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raiffa, H.: The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press (1982)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142(2), 205–237 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jonker, C., Robu, V.: Automated multi-attribute negotation with efficient use of incomplete preference information. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2004), pp. 1054–1061 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ros, R., Sierra, C.: A negotiation meta strategy combining trade-offs and concession moves. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 12(2), 163–181 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ehtamo, H., Ketteunen, E., Hamalainen, R.P.: Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research 1(30), 54–69 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lai, G., Li, C., Sycara, K.: Efficient multi-attribute negotiation with incomplete information. Group Decision and Negotiation 15(5), 511–528 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Marsa-Maestre
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona
    • 1
  • Juan R. Velasco
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de AutomaticaUniversidad de AlcalaSpain

Personalised recommendations