An Agent Architecture for Concurrent Bilateral Negotiations

  • Bedour AlrayesEmail author
  • Kostas Stathis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 184)


We present an architecture that makes use of symbolic decision-making to support agents participating in concurrent bilateral negotiations. The architecture is a revised version of previous work with the KGP model [12, 23], which we specialise with knowledge about the agent’s self, the negotiation opponents and the environment. Our work combines the specification of domain-independent decision-making with a new protocol for concurrent negotiation that revisits the well-known alternating offers protocol [22]. We show how the decision-making can be specialised to represent the agent’s strategies, utilities and preferences using a Prolog-like meta-program. The work prepares the ground for supporting decision-making in concurrent bilateral negotiations that is more lightweight than previous work and contributes towards a fully developed model of the architecture.


Negotiation architectures Interaction protocol e-Markets 


  1. 1.
    Artikis, A., Sergot, M., Pitt, J.: Specifying norm-governed computational societies. ACM Trans. Comput. Logic 10(1), 1–42 (2009)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    An, B., Gatti, N., Lesser, V.: Extending alternating-offers bargaining in one-to-many and many-to-many settings. In: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - vol. 02, WI-IAT ’09, pp. 423–426, Washington, DC, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    An, B., Lesser, V., Sim, K.M.: Strategic agents for multi-resource negotiation. J. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 23, 114–153 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bromuri, S., Stathis, K.: Distributed agent environments in the Ambient Event Calculus. In: DEBS 2009. ACM. NY, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ashri, R., Rahwan, I., Luck, M.: Architectures for negotiating agents. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, pp. 136–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2003) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bakos, J.Y.: A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Q. 15(3), 295–310 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bromuri, S., Urovi, V., Morge, M., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: A multi-agent system for service discovery, selection and negotiation. In: AAMAS 2009, pp. 1395–1396 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bromuri, S., Stathis, K.: Situating cognitive agents in GOLEM. In: Weyns, D., Brueckner, S.A., Demazeau, Y. (eds.) EEMMAS 2007. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5049, pp. 115–134. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging IT platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 25(6), 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artif. Intell. 142, 205–237 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.L.: Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving, 2nd edn. Penguin (Non-Classics), New York (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forth, J., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Decision making with a KGP agent system. J. Decis. Syst. 15(2–3), 241–266 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hernández, J.E., Mula, J., Poler, R., Lyons, A.C.: Collaborative planning in multi-tier supply chains supported by a negotiation-based mechanism and multi-agent system. Group Decis. Negot. 23, 235–269 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hernández, J.E., Lyons, A.C., Mula, J., Poler, R., Ismail, H.S.: Supporting the collaborative decision-making process in an automotive supply chain with a multi-agent system. Prod. Plan. Control. 25(8), 662–678 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hernández, J.E., Lyons, A.C., Poler, R., Mula, J., Goncalves, R.: A reference architecture for the collaborative planning modelling process in multi-tier supply chain networks: a Zachman-based approach. Prod. Plan. Control (2014) (to appear)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kakas, A.C., Mancarella, P., Sadri, F., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: Declarative agent control. In: Leite, J., Torroni, P. (eds.) CLIMA 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3487, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2005) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener. Comput. 4, 67–95 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGinnis, J., Stathis, K., Toni, F.: A formal framework of virtual organisations as agent societies. In: FAVO, pp. 1–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morge, M., McGinnis, J., Bromuri, S., Toni, F., Mancarella, P., Stathis, K.: Toward a modular architecture of argumentative agents to compose services. In: Proceedings of EUMAS (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nguyen, T., Jennings, N.R.: Coordinating multiple concurrent negotiations. In: 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1064–1071 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosenschein, J.S., Zlotkin, G.: Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation Among Computers. MIT Press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–109 (1982)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stathis, K., Toni, F.: The KGP model of agency for decision making in e-negotiation. In: Joint-Workshop on Decision Support Systems, Experimental Economics E-Participation, June 2005Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    West, P., Ariely, D., Bellman, S., Bradlow, E., Huber, J., Johnson, E., Kahn, B., Little, J., Schkade, D.: Agents to the rescue? Marketing Lett. 10(3), 285–300 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams, C.R., Robu, V., Gerding, E.H., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiating concurrently with unknown opponents in complex, real-time domains. In: 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 242, pp. 834–839, August 2012Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Witkowski, M., Stathis, K.: A dialectic architecture for computational autonomy. In: Nickles, M., Rovatsos, M., Weiss, G. (eds.) AUTONOMY 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2969, pp. 261–273. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEgham Hill, EghamUK

Personalised recommendations