Toward a Framework for Implementing and Analyzing Meta-strategies on Simultaneous Negotiations

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 596)

Abstract

This paper presents a framework to easily implement and analyze simultaneous negotiations among agents, including dynamic utility space changes and corresponding strategy changes.Automated negotiation among agents is a technology that can find out an agreement point without fully revealing their utility spaces. In multi-agent negotiation scenarios, an agent can use various form of negotiations, and a simultaneous negotiation is an important form to be investigated. When there is a change in an agent’s utility space, there could have various patterns in generating a counter offer on a simultaneous negotiation. Due to an agent’s change of its behavior, there could be a case that an agent only obtains lower utility while another negotiation had a chance to have higher utility. To solve these issues, the framework effectively supports the implementation and analysis of meta-strategies on such simultaneous negotiations among multiple agents.

Keywords

Multi issue negotiation Meta-strategy 

References

  1. 1.
    Chang, M., He, M., Ekart, A., Luo, X., Zhang, S.: AstonCAT-plus: an efficient specialist for the TAC market design tournament. In: Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, M., He, M., Luo, X.: Bi-directional double auction for financial market simulation. In: IJCAI 2011, pp. 146–151 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fujita, K.: Automated mediation technologies for non-monotonic utility function based on tree-height adjustments. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Haberland, V., Miles, S., Luck, M.: Using adjustable fuzzy inference for adaptive grid resource negotiation. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hara, K., Ito, T.: Effects of Dis GA based mediation protocol for utilities that change over time. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R., Tykhonov, D.: Genius- negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In: Proceedings of 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ilany, L., Gal, K.: Algorithm selection in bilateral negotiation. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ilany, L., Gal, Y.: The simple-meta agent. In: Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Ito, T., Zhang, M., Bai, Q., Fujita, K. (eds.) Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 535, pp. 197–200 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishikawa, T., Fukuta, N.: A prototype system for federated cloud-based resource allocation by automated negotiations using strategy changes. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ito, T., Klein, M., Hattori, H.: Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI07), pp. 1347–1352 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kawaguchi, S., Fujita, K., Ito, T.: Agentk2: compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotiating agents. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 435, pp. 235–241 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kong, Y., Zhang, M., Ye, D., Luo, X.: A negotiation method for task allocation with time constraints in open grid environments. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, R., Kraus, S., Baarslag, T., Tykhonov, D., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M.: Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Comput. Intell. (2012). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.2012.00463.x
  14. 14.
    Lin, R., Yehoshua Gev, S.K.: Facilitating better negotiation solutions using AniMed. In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2011), pp. 64–70 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Marsa-Maestre, I., Velasco, J.R., de la Hoz, E.: A multi-issue negotiation framework for non-monotonic preference spaces. In: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Marsa-Maestrey, I., Klein, M.: Consensus policy based multi-agent negotiation. In: Proceedings of 4th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2011), pp. 1–8 (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo, X., Jennings, N.R., Shadbolt, N., Leung, H.F., Lee, J.H.M.: A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artif. Intell. 148(1–2), 53–102 (2003)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luo, X., Miao, C., Jennings, N.R., He, M., Shen, Z., Zhang, M.: Kemnad: a knowledge engineering methodology for negotiating agent development. Comput. Intell. 28(1), 51–105 (2012)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Ito, T., Klein, M., Fujita, K.: Balancing utility and deal probability for auction-based negotiations in highly nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proceedings of the 22th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI09), pp. 214–219 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-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: Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2010) (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mizutani, N., Fujita, K., Ito, T.: Effective distributed genetic algorithms for optimizing social utility. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Sustainable Enterprise Software (SES2011) (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okumura, M., Fujita, K., Ito, T.: Implementation of collective collaboration support system based on automated multi-agent negotiation, pp. 71–76 (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pan, L., Luo, X., Meng, X., Miao, C., He, M., Guo, X.: A two-stage win-win multiattribute negotiation model: optimization and then concession. Comput. Intell. (2012)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rahwan, I., Kowalczyk, R., Pham, H.H.: Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. In: Proceedings of 25th Australian Computer Science Conference, vol. 4, pp. 197–204 (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ren, F., Zhang, M., Luo, X., Soetanto, D.: A parallel, multi-issue negotiation model in dynamic e-markets. In: Wang, D., Reynolds, M. (eds.), pp. 442–451. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shoham, Y., Leyton-Brown, K.: Multiagent Systems: Algorithmic, Game-theoretic, and Logical. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sim, K.M.: Concurrent negotiation and coordination for grid resource coallocation. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.-Part B: Cybern. 40(3), 753–766 (2010)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sim, K.: Complex and concurrent negotiations for multiple interrelated e-markets. IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.-Part B: Cybern. 40(1), 230–245 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tsuruhashi, Y., Fukuta, N.: A preliminary toolkit for analyzing meta-strategies in simultaneous negotiations among agents. In: Proceedings of IIAI International Symposium on Applied Informatics, pp. 26–29 (2012)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tsuruhashi, Y., Fukuta, N.: An analysis framework for meta strategies in simultaneous negotiations. In: Proceedings of 6th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tsuruhashi, Y., Fukuta, N.: A framework for analyzing simultaneous negotiations. In: Proceedings of 16th International Conference on Principles and Practice of Multi-Agent Systems (PRIMA 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams, C.R., Robu, V., Gerding, E.H., Jennings, N.R.: Towards a platform for concurrent negotiations in complex domains. In: Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2012), pp. 26–33 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of InformaticsShizuoka UniversityHamamatsuJapan

Personalised recommendations