Towards a Quantitative Concession-Based Classification Method of Negotiation Strategies

  • Tim Baarslag
  • Koen Hindriks
  • Catholijn Jonker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7047)


In order to successfully reach an agreement in a negotiation, both parties rely on each other to make concessions. The willingness to concede also depends in large part on the opponent. A concession by the opponent may be reciprocated, but the negotiation process may also be frustrated if the opponent does not concede at all.

This process of concession making is a central theme in many of the classic and current automated negotiation strategies. In this paper, we present a quantitative classification method of negotiation strategies that measures the willingness of an agent to concede against different types of opponents. The method is then applied to classify some well-known negotiating strategies, including the agents of ANAC 2010. It is shown that the technique makes it easy to identify the main characteristics of negotiation agents, and can be used to group negotiation strategies into categories with common negotiation characteristics. We also observe, among other things, that different kinds of opponents call for a different approach in making concessions.


Automated bilateral negotiation Classification Concession Cooperation Competition Negotiation strategy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T., Yamaki, H. (eds.) Innovations in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. SCI, vol. 319. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) (to appear)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deutsch, M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus, E.C.: The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, 1st edn. Jossey-Bass (April 2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N., Buckle, P.: Designing flexible automated negotiators: Concessions, trade-offs and issue changes. Tech. rep. (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Int. Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24(3-4), 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M.J., 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. 377–392. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gode, D.K., Sunder, S.: Allocative efficiency in markets with zero intelligence (zi) traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy 101(1), 119–137 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hindriks, K.V., Tykhonov, D.: Towards a Quality Assessment Method for Learning Preference Profiles in Negotiation. In: Ketter, W., La Poutré, H., Sadeh, N., Shehory, O., Walsh, W. (eds.) AMEC 2008. LNBIP, vol. 44, pp. 46–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kersten, G., Noronha, S.: Rational agents, contract curves, and inefficient compromises report. Working papers, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (1997),
  10. 10.
    Kersten, G.E., Zhang, G.: Mining inspire data for the determinants of successful internet negotiations. InterNeg Research Papers INR 04/01 Central European Journal of Operational Research (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lai, H., Doong, H.S., Kao, C.C., Kersten, G.: Negotiators’ communication, perception of their counterparts, and performance in dyadic e-negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 15, 429–447 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., Minton, J.W.: Essentials of Negotiation. McGraw-Hill, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M.: Supporting the design of general automated negotiators. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations, ACAN 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., Barry, J.: Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence 172(6-7), 823–851 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lomuscio, A., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.: A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce. In: Dignum, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) AgentLink 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1991, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pruitt, D.G.: Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–109 (1982), MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sierra, C., Faratin, P., Jennings, N.: A service-oriented negotiation model between autonomous agents. In: Boman, M., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1237, pp. 17–35. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomas, K.W.: Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13(3), 265–274 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wellman, M.P., Wurman, P.R., O’Malley, K., Bangera, R., de Lin, S., Reeves, D., Walsh, W.E.: Designing the market game for a trading agent competition. IEEE Internet Computing 5(2), 43–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams, C.R., Robu, V., Gerding, E.H., Jennings, N.R.: Using gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press (January 2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zachariassen, F.: Negotiation strategies in supply chain management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38, 764–781 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tim Baarslag
    • 1
  • Koen Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn Jonker
    • 1
  1. 1.Man Machine Interaction GroupDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations