Advertisement

Reasoning and Negotiating with Complex Preferences Using CP-Nets

  • Reyhan Aydoğan
  • Nuri Taşdemir
  • Pınar Yolum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 44)

Abstract

Automated negotiation is important for carrying out flexible transactions. Agents that take part in automated negotiation need to have a concise representation of their user’s preferences and should be able to reason on these preferences effectively. We develop an automated negotiation platform wherein consumer agents negotiate with producer agents about services. A consumer agent represents its user’s preferences in a compact way using a CP-net, which is a structure that allows users to order their preferences based on the different value combinations of attributes. Acquiring user’s preferences in a compact way is crucial since it significantly decreases the number of questions to be asked to the user by the consumer agent. We design strategies for consumer agents to reason on and negotiate effectively with the preference graph induced from a CP-net. These strategies are designed to generate deals that are acceptable by the provider and the consumer. We compare our proposed strategies in terms of how well and how quickly they can find desirable deals for the consumer.

Keywords

Child Node White Wine Service Node Preference Graph Automate 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.
    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)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gonzales, C., Perny, P.: GAI networks for utility elicitation. In: KR 2004 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boutilier, C., Brafman, R.I., Domshlak, C., Hoos, H.H., Poole, D.: CP-nets: A Tool for Representing and Reasoning with Conditional Ceteris Paribus Preference Statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), 135–191 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aydoğan, R., Yolum, P.: Learning Consumer Preferences Using Semantic Similarity. In: 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Hawaii, USA, May 2007, pp. 1293–1300 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansson, S.O.: What is ceteris paribus preference? Journal of Philosophical Logic 25(3), 307–332 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tversky, A.: Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84(4), 327–352 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    OWL Web Ontology Language Guide (2004), http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K.: Opponent Modelling in Automated Multi-Issue Negotiation Using Bayesian Learning. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS), Estorial, Portugal (May 2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dastani, M., Jacobs, N., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Modelling user preferences and mediating agents in electronic commerce. Knowledge-based systems 18(7), 335–352 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo, X., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N.: Acquiring user strategies and preferences for negotiating agents: a default then adjust method. Int J. of Human Computer Studies 64(4), 304–321 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reyhan Aydoğan
    • 1
  • Nuri Taşdemir
    • 1
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringBoğaziçi UniversityBebekTurkey

Personalised recommendations