Scalable Negotiation Protocol Based on Issue-Grouping for Highly Nonlinear Situation

  • Katsuhide Fujita
  • Takayuki Ito
  • Mark Klein
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 28)

Abstract

Most real-world negotiation involves multiple interdependent issues, which makes an agent’s utility functions nonlinear. Traditional negotiation mechanisms, which were designed for linear utilities, do not fare well in nonlinear contexts. One of the main challenges in developing effective nonlinear negotiation protocols is scalability; they can’t find a high-quality solution when there are many issues, due to computational intractability. One reasonable approach to reducing computational cost, while maintaining good quality outcomes, is to decompose the utility space into several largely independent sub-spaces. In this paper, we propose a method for decomposing a utility space based on every agent’s utility space. In addition, the mediator finds the contracts in each group based on the votes from all agents, and combines the contract in each issue-group. This method allows good outcomes with greater scalability than the method without issue-grouping. We demonstrate that our protocol, based on issue-groups, has a higher optimality rate than previous efforts, and discuss the impact on the optimality of the negotiation outcomes.

Keywords

Simulated Annealing Utility Space Negotiation Protocol Binary Constraint 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.
    An, B., Lesser, V.R., Irwin, D., Zink, M.: Automated negotiation with decommitment for dynamic resource allocation in cloud computing. In: Proc. of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2010), pp. 981–988 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barabási, A.L., Bonabeau, E.: Scale-free networks. Sci. Am. 288(5), 50–59 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence, 142:205–142:237 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: An analysis of feasible solutions for multi-issue negotiation involving nonlinear utility functions. In: Proc. of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pp. 1041–1048 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Approximate and online multi-issue negotiation. In: Proc. of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2007), pp. 947–954 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fujita, K., Ito, T., Klein, M.: A representative-based multi-round protocol for multi-issue negotiations. In: Proc. of the Seventh Inernational Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2008), pp. 1573–1576 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenstadt, R., Pearce, J., Tambe, M.: Analysis of privacy loss in distributed constraint optimization. In: Proc. of the 21st Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2006), pp. 647–653 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hindriks, K., Jonker, C., Tykhonov, D.: Eliminating interdependencies between issues for multi-issue negotiation. In: Klusch, M., Rovatsos, M., Payne, T.R. (eds.) CIA 2006. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4149, pp. 301–316. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ito, T., Hattori, H., Klein, M.: Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: Exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proc. of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2007), pp. 1347–1352 (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jonker, C.M., Robu, V., Treur, J.: An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (JAAMAS) 15, 221–252 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., Bar-Yam, Y.: Negotiating complex contracts. Group Decision and Negotiation 12(2), 58–73 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kraus, S.: Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S.: Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans? Commun. ACM 53(1), 78–88 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Oshrat, Y., Gal, Y.K.: Facilitating the evaluation of automated negotiators using peer designed agents. In: Proc. of The 24th Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, R.J., Chou, S.T.: Bilateral multi-issue negotiations in a dynamic environment. In: Proc. of the AAMAS Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce, AMEC-2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Girvan, M., Newman, M.E.J.: Community structure in social and biological networks. National Academy of Sciences of USA (PNAS) 99(12), 7821–7826 (2002)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maheswaran, R.T., Pearce, J.P., Varakantham, P., Bowring, E.: Valuations of possible states (vps):a quantitative framework for analysis of privacy loss among collaborative personal assistant agents. In: Proc. of the Forth Inernational Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2005), pp. 1030–1037 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Malone, T.W., Klein, M.: Harnessing collective intelligence to address global climate change. Innovations Journal 2(3), 15–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R., de la Hoz, E.: Effective bidding and deal identification for negotiations in highly nonlinear scenarios. In: Proc. of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pp. 1057–1064 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marsá-Maestre, I., López-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R., de la Hoz, E.: Avoiding the prisoner’s dilemma in auction-based negotiations for highly rugged utility spaces. In: Proc. of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2010), pp. 425–432 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R., Ito, T., Klein, M., Fujita, K.: Balancing utility and deal probability for negotiations in highly nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proc. of the Twenty-first International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2009), pp. 214–219 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robu, V., Somefun, D.J.A., Poutre, J.L.: Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs. In: Proc. of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), pp. 280–287 (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shew, J., Larson, K.: The blind leading the blind: A third-party model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations under incomplete information. In: Proc. of the 1st International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations, ACAN-2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tamura, H., Nakamura, Y.: Decompositions of multiattribute utility functions based on convex dependence. Operations Research 31(3), 488–506 (1983)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang, D.: Axiomatic characterization of task oriented negotiation. In: Proc. of Twenty-first International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2009), pp. 367–372 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katsuhide Fujita
    • 1
    • 2
  • Takayuki Ito
    • 1
  • Mark Klein
    • 3
  1. 1.Nagoya Institute of TechnologyNagoyaJapan
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA
  3. 3.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations