Abstract
In the previous chapters, we performed extensive research into three different aspects of an automated negotiator: bidding (Chaps. 8 and 9), learning (Chaps. 6 and 7), and accepting (Chaps. 4 and 5). We have found novel ways to handle each component, sometimes even in optimal ways for particular circumstances. The natural question then arises: how do the pieces fit together? Or, more specifically: how do the components of a negotiating agent influence its overall performance, and which components are the most important for the end result of an agent? In this chapter, we provide an answer to this question in a quantitative way. In doing so, we show that the BOA framework not only provides a useful basis for developing and evaluating agent components, but also provides a powerful agent design tool. Furthermore, we demonstrate that combining effective key components from different agents improves an agent’s overall performance. This validates the analytical approach of the BOA framework towards optimizing the individual components of a negotiating agent. By combining agent components in varying ways, we are able to demonstrate the contribution of each component to the overall negotiation result, and thus determine the key contributing components. Moreover, we study the interaction between components and present detailed interaction effects. We find that the bidding strategy in particular is of critical importance to the negotiator’s success and far exceeds the importance of opponent preference modeling techniques. Our results contribute to the shaping of a research agenda for negotiating agent design by providing guidelines on how agent developers can spend their time most effectively.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Note that this set also includes already existing agents such as HardHeaded and The Negotiator Reloaded, since their components occur in all three groups.
References
Coe R (2002) It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. In: British Educational Research Association Conference. Education-line
Richardson JTE (2011) Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educ Res Rev 6(2):135–147
Zeng D, Sycara KP (1998) Bayesian learning in negotiation. Int J Human-Comput Stud 48(1):125–141
Baarslag T, Fujita K, Gerding EH, Hindriks KV, Ito T, Jennings NR, Jonker CM, Kraus S, Lin R, Robu V, Williams CR (2013) Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artif Intell 198:73–103
Hao J, Leung H-F (2012) ABiNeS: an adaptive bilateral negotiating strategy over multiple items. In: Proceedings of the The 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM international joint conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technology, WI-IAT ’12, vol 2. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, pp 95–102
Dirkzwager ASY, Hendrikx MJC (2014) An adaptive negotiation strategy for real-time bilateral negotiations. In: Marsa-Maestre I, Lopez-Carmona MA, Ito T, Zhang M, Bai Q, Fujita K (eds) Novel insights in agent-based complex automated negotiation, Japan, studies in computational intelligence, vol 535. Springer, Japan, pp 163–170
Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot Auton Syst 24(3–4):159–182
Baarslag T, Hindriks KV, Jonker CM (2013) A tit for tat negotiation strategy for real-time bilateral negotiations. In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Matsuo T (eds) Complex automated negotiations: theories, models, and software competitions, studies in computational intelligence, vol 435. Springer, pp 229–233
Morii S, Ito T (2014) AgentMR: concession strategy based on heuristic for automated negotiating agents. In: Marsa-Maestre I, Lopez-Carmona MA, Ito T, Zhang M, Bai Q, Fujita K (eds) Novel insights in agent-based complex automated negotiation, studies in computational intelligence, vol 535. Springer, Japan, pp 181–186
van Krimpen T, Looije D, Hajizadeh S (2013) Hardheaded. In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Matsuo T (eds) Complex automated negotiations: theories, models, and software competitions, studies in computational intelligence, vol 435. Springer, pp 223–227
van Galen Last N (2012) Agent Smith: opponent model estimation in bilateral multi-issue negotiation. In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Fatima S, Matsuo T (eds) New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations, studies in computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 167–174
Chen S, Weiss G (2014) OMAC: a discrete wavelet transformation based negotiation agent. In: Marsa-Maestre I, Lopez-Carmona MA, Ito T, Zhang M, Bai Q, Fujita K (eds) Novel insights in agent-based complex automated negotiation, studies in computational intelligence, vol 535. Springer, Japan, pp 187–196
Williams CR, Robu V, Gerding EH, Jennings NR (2012) Iamhaggler: a negotiation agent for complex environments. In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Fatima S, Matsuo T (eds) New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations, studies in computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–158
Dirkzwager ASY, Hendrikx MJC, Ruiter JR (2013) The negotiator: a dynamic strategy for bilateral negotiations with time-based discounts. In: Ito T, Zhang M, Robu V, Matsuo T (eds) Complex automated negotiations: theories, models, and software competitions, studies in computational intelligence, vol 435. Springer, pp 217–221
Jenks GF, Department of Geography, University of Kansa (1977) Optimal data classification for choropleth maps. Occasional paper. University of Kansas
Baarslag T, Dirkzwager ASY, Hindriks KV, Jonker CM (2014) The significance of bidding, accepting and opponent modeling in automated negotiation. In: 21st European conference on artificial intelligence, vol 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pp 27–32
This chapter is based on the following publications: [16]
Tim Baarslag, Alexander S.Y. Dirkzwager, Koen V. Hindriks, and Catholijn M. Jonker. The significance of bidding, accepting and opponent modeling in automated negotiation. In 21st European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 263 of Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, pages 27–32, 2014
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baarslag, T. (2016). Putting the Pieces Together. In: Exploring the Strategy Space of Negotiating Agents. Springer Theses. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28243-5_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28243-5_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28242-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28243-5
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)