Monotonic Mixing of Decision Strategies for Agent-Based Bargaining

  • Jan Richter
  • Matthias Klusch
  • Ryszard Kowalczyk
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6973)

Abstract

In automated bargaining a common method to obtain complex concession behaviour is to mix individual tactics, or decision functions, by a linear weighted combination. In such systems, the negotiation process between agents using mixed strategies with imitative and non-imitative tactics is highly dynamic, and non-monotonicity in the sequence of utilities of proposed offers can emerge at any time even in cases of individual cooperative behaviour and static strategy settings of both agents. This can result in a number of undesirable effects, such as delayed agreements, significant variation of outcomes with lower utilities, or a partial loss of control over the strategy settings. We propose two alternatives of mixing to avoid these problems, one based on individual imitative negotiation threads and one based on single concessions of each tactic involved. We prove that both produce monotonic sequences of utilities over time for mixed multi-tactic strategies with static and dynamically changing weights thereby avoiding such dynamic effects, and show with a comparative evaluation that they can provide utility gains for each agent in many multi-issue negotiation scenarios.

Keywords

Multiagent System Mixed Strategy Linear Weighted Combination Monotonic Sequence Aggregate Utility 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brzostowski, J., Kowalczyk, R.: Predicting Partner’s Behaviour in Agent Negotiation. In: AAMAS 2006, pp. 355–361. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso, H.L., Oliveira, E.: Using and Evaluating Adaptive Agents for Electronic Commerce Negotiation. In: Monard, M.C., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) SBIA 2000 and IBERAMIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1952, pp. 96–105. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faratin, P.: Automated Service Negotiation Between Autonomous Computational Agents. PhD Thesis, University of London (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation Decision Functions for Autonomous Agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24(3-4), 159–182 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using Similarity Criteria to make Issue Trade-offs in Automated Negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142, 205–237 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Bargaining with Incomplete Information. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44(3), 207–232 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ito, T., Hattori, H., Klein, M.: Multi-Issue Negotiation Protocol for Agents: Exploring Nonlinear Utility Spaces. In: 20th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1347–1352. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matos, N., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Determining Successful Negotiation Strategies: An Evolutionary Approach. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raiffa, H.: The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Richter, J., Klusch, M., Kowalczyk, R.: On Monotonic Mixed Tactics and Strategies for Multi-Issue Negotiation. In: AAMAS 2010, pp. 1609–1610 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ros, R., Sierra, C.: A Negotiation Meta Strategy Combining Trade-off and Concession Moves. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 12, 163–181 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winoto, P., McCalla, G.I., Vassileva, J.: Non-Monotonic-Offers Bargaining Protocol. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(1), 45–67 (2005)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Richter
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthias Klusch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ryszard Kowalczyk
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Swinburne University of TechnologyMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.German Research Center for Artificial IntelligenceSaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations