Skip to main content

Self-sufficient, Self-directed, and Interdependent Negotiation Systems: A Roadmap Toward Autonomous Negotiation Agents

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bargaining

Abstract

Negotiation, the process of joint decision-making, is pervasive in our society (23). Whenever actors meet and influence each other to forge a mutually beneficial agreement, a form of negotiation is at work (44).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. G Adomavicius and A Tuzhilin. Context-aware recommender systems. In Recommender systems handbook, pages 191–226. Springer, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M Alam, E H Gerding, et al. A scalable interdependent multi-issue negotiation protocol for energy exchange. In IJCAI, pages 1098–1104, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M Ali, J Nelson, et al. Blockstack: A global naming and storage system secured by blockchains. In USENIX ATC, pages 181–194, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  4. T Baarslag, K Fujita, et al. Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198:73–103, May 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. T Baarslag and M Kaisers. The value of information in automated negotiation: A decision model for eliciting user preferences. In AAMAS 2017, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  6. T Baarslag, M Kaisers, E H Gerding, C M Jonker, and J Gratch. Computers that negotiate on our behalf: Major challenges for self-sufficient, self-directed, and interdependent negotiating agents, volume 10643 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 143–163. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T Baarslag, M Kaisers, E H Gerding, C M Jonker, and J Gratch. When will negotiation agents be able to represent us? The challenges and opportunities for autonomous negotiators. In Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’17, pages 4684–4690, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  8. B Barry, I S Fulmer, et al. I laughed, I cried, I settled: The role of emotion in negotiation. In The handbook of negotiation and culture, pages 71–94, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. C Boutilier. A POMDP formulation of preference elicitation problems. In AAAI, pages 239–246, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  10. C Boutilier. On the foundations of expected expected utility. In IJCAI’03, pages 285–290, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J M Bradshaw, P J Feltovich, et al. Dimensions of adjustable autonomy and mixed-initiative interaction. In International workshop on computational autonomy, pages 17–39. Springer, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  12. U Chajewska, D Koller, et al. Making rational decisions using adaptive utility elicitation. In AAAI, pages 363–369, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  13. D Chugh, M H Bazerman, et al. Bounded ethicality as a psychological barrier to recognizing conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest: Challenges and solutions in business, law, medicine, and public policy, pages 74–95, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  14. J R Curhan, H A Elfenbein, et al. What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3):493, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. D de Jonge, C Sierra, et al. Negotiations over large agreement spaces. PhD thesis, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  16. C M de Melo, S Marsella, et al. Do as I say, not as I do: Challenges in delegating decisions to automated agents. In AAMAS, pages 949–956, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  17. M Dehghani, S Atran, et al. Sacred values and conflict over Iran’s nuclear program. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(7):540, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. T Eisenberg and C Lanvers. What is the settlement rate and why should we care? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1):111–146, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. E Fehr and K M Schmidt. The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism–experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1:615–691, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. P J Feltovich, B van Riemsdijk, et al. Autonomy and interdependence in human-agent-robot teams, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  21. T Fong, C Thorpe, and C Baur. Collaborative control: A robot-centric model for vehicle teleoperation, volume 1. Carnegie Mellon University, The Robotics Institute, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J Gratch, Z Nazari, et al. The misrepresentation game: How to win at negotiation while seeming like a nice guy. In AAMAS, pages 728–737, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  23. K L Harris. Content analysis in negotiation research: A review and guide. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(3):458–467, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. K Hindriks, C M Jonker, et al. Avoiding approximation errors in multi-issue negotiation with issue dependencies. In ACAN, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  25. W Hu and A Bolivar. Online auctions efficiency: A survey of ebay auctions. In WWW, pages 925–934, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  26. T Ito, M Klein, et al. A multi-issue negotiation protocol among agents with nonlinear utility functions. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 4(1):67–83, January 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. N R Jennings, P Faratin, et al. Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. GDN, 10(2):199–215, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  28. M Johnson, J M Bradshaw, et al. The fundamental principle of coactive design: Interdependence must shape autonomy, pages 172–191. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  29. G E Kersten and G Lo. Negotiation support systems and software agents in e-business negotiations. In ICEB, pages 19–21, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  30. L Li, L Zheng, et al. Modeling and broadening temporal user interest in personalized news recommendation. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(7):3168–3177, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. M Luck, M D’Inverno, et al. Autonomy: Variable and generative, pages 11–28. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  32. I Marsa-Maestre, M Klein, et al. From problems to protocols: Towards a negotiation handbook. In Decision support systems, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J Mell, G Lucas, et al. An effective conversation tactic for creating value over repeated negotiations. In AAMAS ’15, pages 1567–1576, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  34. D A Norman. The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 327(1241):585–593, 1990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. J Prause-Stamm. Self-directedness and resoluteness. The two dimensions of autonomy. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  36. E B-N Sanders and P J Stappers. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1):5–18, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J K Sebenius. Negotiation analysis: A characterization and review. Management Science, 38(1):18–38, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. M Shafie-khah, D Z Fitiwi, et al. Simultaneous participation of demand response aggregators in ancillary services and demand response exchange markets. In 2016 IEEE/PES T&D, pages 1–5, May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  39. J Simonsen and T Robertson. Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  40. R G Smith. The contract net protocol: High-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 29(12):1104–1113, 1980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. K P Sycara. Arguments of persuasion in labour mediation. In IJCAI, volume 1, pages 294–296, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  42. N A Welsh. Perceptions of fairness in negotiation. Marquette Law Review, 87:753, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  43. R Yang, C Kiekintveld, et al. Improving resource allocation strategy against human adversaries in security games. In IJCAI, volume 22, page 458. Citeseer, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  44. H P Young. Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was originally published in [6, 7]. This work is part of the Veni research program with project number 639.021.751, which is financed by The Dutch Research Council (NWO).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Baarslag .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Baarslag, T., Kaisers, M., Gerding, E.H., Jonker, C.M., Gratch, J. (2022). Self-sufficient, Self-directed, and Interdependent Negotiation Systems: A Roadmap Toward Autonomous Negotiation Agents. In: Karagözoğlu, E., Hyndman, K.B. (eds) Bargaining. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76666-5_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76666-5_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76665-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-76666-5

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics