A Qualitative Ascending Protocol for Multi-issue One-to-Many Negotiations
Many practical distributed systems environments require novel automatic mechanisms including multi-attribute reverse auctions for efficient partner selection and contracts negotiation. Recent results  show that the property of transferable utilities is not of vital importance, as qualitative versions of the standard auctions (e.g. qualitative Vickrey auctions (QVA), qualitative English auctions (QEA)) are proved to exhibit nice efficiency properties as well. Such auctions require that the preferences of the auctioneer are publicly known. However, practical protocols of multi-bilateral closed negotiations between a buyer and multiple sellers are experimentally shown  to approximate the Pareto-efficient best-seller QVA outcome, without requesting that any of the parties explicitly reveals their preferences. The only condition is to enable bidders to learn preferences. In this paper we introduce two novel negotiation protocols that approximates a qualitative ascending English auction (QEA) and overcomes some restrictions imposed by the non-transferable utilities environment. Our auction-like protocols are designed for fully automatic environments with learning agents playing the bidders’ roles.
KeywordsPareto Frontier Utility Difference Negotiation Protocol English Auction Bilateral Negotiation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Andrieux, A., Czajkowski, K., Dan, A., Keahey, K., Ludwig, H., Nakata, T., Pruyne, J., Rofrano, J., Tuecke, S., Xu, M.: Web services agreement specification (ws-agreement). In: OGF Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol (GRAAP) WG (2007), http://www.ggf.org/documents/GFD.107.pdf
- 2.Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The First Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2010). In: Ito, T., Zhang, M., Robu, V., Fatima, S., Matsuo, T. (eds.) New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. SCI, vol. 383, pp. 113–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bichler, M., Lee, J., Lee, H.S., Chung, J.Y.: ABSolute: An Intelligent Decision Making Framework for E-Sourcing. In: International Workshop on Advanced Issues of E-Commerce and Web-Based Information Systems, pp. 195–201. IEEE Computer Society (2001)Google Scholar
- 6.Harrenstein, B.P., de Weerdt, M.M., Conitzer, V.: A qualitative vickrey auction. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 197–206. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
- 7.Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R., Tykhonov, D.: Genius: negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In: AAMAS 2009: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1397–1398. IFAAMAS (2009)Google Scholar
- 8.Hindriks, K., Tykhonov, D.: Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In: AAMAS 2008: Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 331–338. IFAAMAS (2008)Google Scholar
- 13.Nguyen, T.D., Jennings, N.R.: Reasoning about commitments in multiple concurrent negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, ICEC 2004, pp. 77–84. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
- 15.Rahwan, I., Kowalczyk, R., Pham, H.H.: Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. Australian Computer Science Communications 24(1), 197–204 (2002)Google Scholar
- 16.Sandholm, T.W.: Distributed rational decision making, pp. 201–258. MIT Press (1999)Google Scholar
- 17.Silaghi, G.C., Serban, L.D., Litan, C.M.: A Time-Constrained SLA Negotiation Strategy in Competitive Computational Grids. Future Generation Computer Systems (2011) (Online first)Google Scholar
- 18.Waeldrich, O., Battre, D., Brazier, F., Clark, K., Oey, M., Papaspyrou, A., Wieder, P., Ziegler, W.: Ws-agreement negotiation 1.0. In: OGF Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Protocol (GRAAP) WG (2010)Google Scholar