On Learning Negotiation Strategies by Artificial Adaptive Agents in Environments of Incomplete Information

  • Jim R. Oliver
Part of the International Handbooks on Information Systems book series (INFOSYS)


Automated negotiation by artificial adaptive agents (AAAs) holds great promise for electronic commerce, but non-trivial, practical issues remain. Published studies of AAA learning of negotiation strategies have been based on artificial environments that include complete payoff information for both sides of the bargaining table. This is not realistic in applied contexts. Without loss of generality, we consider the case of a seller who knows its own preferences over negotiation outcomes but will have limited information about the private values of each customer. We propose a learning environment that takes advantage of partial information likely to be available to the vendor. General strategies are learned for a group of similar customers - a market segment - through a simulation approach and a genetic learning algorithm. In addition, we systematically further relax constraints on the opponent’s preferences to further explore AAA learning in incomplete information environments.


Incomplete Information Customer Preference Pareto Frontier Negotiation Strategy Customer Segment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [Alb88]
    W. Albers, Aspirations and aspiration adjustment in location games, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. [Bic01]
    M. Bichler, The future of e-markets: Multi-dimensional market mechanisms, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. [Cam90]
    Colin F. Camerer, Behavioral game theory, Insights in Decision Making: A Tribute to Hillel J. Einhorn (R.M. Hogarth, ed.), Univ. of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 1990, pp. 311–336.Google Scholar
  4. [CSLC01]
    S. Choi, P. M. Samuel, J. Liu, and S. P. Chan, A genetic agent-based negotiation system, Computer Networks 37 (2001), no. 2, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [DKL96]
    Garett O. Dworman, Steven O. Kimbrough, and James D. Laing, On automated discovery of models using genetic programming: Bargaining in a three-agent coalitions game, Journal of Management Information Systems 12 (1995-96), no. 3, 97–125.Google Scholar
  6. [Far98]
    P. Faratin, Negotiation among groups of autonomous computational agents. thesis, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electronic Engineering, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [Gol89]
    D. Goldberg, Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning, Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. [Mum91]
    J. Mumpower, The judgment policies of negotiators and the structure of negotiation problems, Management Science 37 (1991), no. 10, 1304–1324.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [Oli96]
    Jim R. Oliver, A machine learning approach to automated negotiation and prospects for electronic commerce, Journal of Management Information Systems 13 (1996), no. 3, 83–112.Google Scholar
  10. [Oli97]
    —, Artificial agents learn policies for multi-issue negotiation, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 (1997), no. 4, 49–88.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. [RS97]
    A. Rangaswamy and R. Shell, Using computers to realize joint gains in negotiations: Toward and electronic bargaining table, Management Science 43 (1997), no. 8, 1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [TWL00]
    M. Tu, E. Wolff, and W. Lamersdorf, Genetic algorithms for automated negotiations: a FSM-based application approach, Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Database and Expert Systems (DEXA 2000), 2000.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jim R. Oliver
    • 1
  1. 1.INSEADFrance

Personalised recommendations