Towards a Quantitative Concession-Based Classification Method of Negotiation Strategies
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.
KeywordsAutomated bilateral negotiation Classification Concession Cooperation Competition Negotiation strategy
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books (1984)Google Scholar
- 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.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.Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N., Buckle, P.: Designing flexible automated negotiators: Concessions, trade-offs and issue changes. Tech. rep. (1999)Google Scholar
- 9.Kersten, G., Noronha, S.: Rational agents, contract curves, and inefficient compromises report. Working papers, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (1997), http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:wop:iasawp:ir97050
- 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
- 12.Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., Minton, J.W.: Essentials of Negotiation. McGraw-Hill, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
- 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
- 16.Pruitt, D.G.: Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press (1981)Google Scholar
- 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