A Novel Strategy for Efficient Negotiation in Complex Environments
A complex and challenging bilateral negotiation environment for rational autonomous agents is where agents negotiate multi-issue contracts in unknown application domains against unknown opponents under real-time constraints. In this paper we present a novel negotiation strategy called EMAR for this kind of environment which is based on a combination of Empirical Mode Decomposition (EMD) and Autoregressive Moving Average (ARMA). EMAR enables a negotiating agent to adjust its target utility and concession rate adaptively in real-time according to the behavior of its opponent. The experimental results show that this new strategy outperforms the best agents from the latest Automated Negotiation Agents (ANAC) Competition in a wide range of application domains.
KeywordsMultiagent System Empirical Mode Decomposition Negotiation Strategy Minimum Utility Automate Negotiation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The First Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2010). In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. SCI, vol. 383, pp. 113–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Box, G., Jenkins, G.M., Reinsel, G.C.: Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall (1994)Google Scholar
- 5.Chen, S., Weiss, G.: An Efficient and Adaptive Approach to Negotiation in Complex Environments. In: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2012), Montpellier, France. IOS Press (2012)Google Scholar
- 6.Coehoorn, R.M., Jennings, N.R.: Learning on opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Int. Conf. on Electronic Commerce, ICEC 2004, pp. 59–68. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Hunag, N.E., Shen, Z., Long, S.R.: The empirical mode decomposition and the hilbert spectrum for nonlinear and nonstationary time series analysis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, 903–995 (1998)Google Scholar
- 11.Hendrikx, M.: A survey of oppnent models in automated negotiation. Technical report, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands (September 2011)Google Scholar
- 12.Hindriks, K., Jonker, C., Kraus, S., Lin, R., Tykhonov, D.: Genius: negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In: Proceedings of AAMAS 2009, pp. 1397–1398 (2009)Google Scholar
- 13.Hou, C.: Predicting agents tactics in automated negotiation. In: IEEE / WIC / ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 127–133. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
- 14.Huang, N.E., Shen, S.S.P.: Hilbert-Huang transform and its applications. World Scientific (2005)Google Scholar
- 16.Lai, G., Li, C., Sycara, K., Giampapa, J.: Literature review on multi-attribute negotiations. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-04-66, Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, PA (December 2004)Google Scholar
- 18.Raiffa, H.: The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
- 21.Williams, C., Robu, V., Gerding, E., Jennings, N.: Using gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Internatioanl Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press (2011)Google Scholar