Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agenda-Based Automated Negotiation Through Utility Decomposition

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Recent Advances in Agent-Based Negotiation: Applications and Competition Challenges (IJCAI 2022)

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 1092))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 230 Accesses

Abstract

The success of a negotiation depends mainly on the strategies of the negotiators and the problem domain. It is common for negotiators to rely on an agenda to simplify the process and reach better deals. This is particularly true when the negotiators’ preferences are defined over multiple issues. Using an agenda to explore and decompose the interdependencies between the issues is one way to address this problem. This paper applies the classical divide-and-conquer approach to automated negotiations through utility decomposition and bottom-up agenda construction. The approach does not impose an agenda from the top level of the negotiations but builds it bottom-up, given the individual utility functions of the agents and the relationships between the issues. We implemented our method in a novel protocol called the Decomposable Alternating Offers Protocol (DAOP). The protocol reduces the cost of exploring the utility spaces of the agents and the generation of optimal bids. As a result, the divide-and-conquer algorithm positively influences the global performance of an automated negotiation system.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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. Alam, M., Gerding, E.H., Rogers, A., Ramchurn, S.D.: A scalable interdependent multi-issue negotiation protocol for energy exchange. In: Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arrow, K.J., Jahnssonin säätiö. Y.: Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Economica 33, 251 (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aydogan, R., Festen, D., Hindriks, K., Jonker. C.: Alternating Offers Protocols for Multilateral Negotiation, vol. 674, pp. 153–167 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baarslag, T., Hindriks, K., Jonker, C., Kraus, S., Lin, R.: The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). In: New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 383. Springer, Heidelberg (2010) .https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24696-8_7

  5. Baarslag, T., Kaisers, M.: The value of information in automated negotiation: a decision model for eliciting user preferences. In: Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 391–400 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bouton, M., Julian, K., Nakhaei, A., Fujimura, K., Kochenderfer, M.J.: Utility decomposition with deep corrections for scalable planning under uncertainty. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, pp. 462–469 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Choi Chiu, M., Ying Wong, H.: Optimal investment for an insurer with cointegrated assets: CRRA utility. Insur. Math. Econo. 52(1), 52–64 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Optimal agendas for multi-issue negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2003, pp. 129–136, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fujita, K., Ito, T., Klein, M.: An approach to scalable multi-issue negotiation: decomposing the contract space. Comput. Intell. 30, 02 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Guler, A.U., Demirović, E., Chan, J., Bailey, J., Leckie, C., Stuckey, P.J.: A divide and conquer algorithm for predict+ optimize with non-convex problems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, pp. 3749–3757 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hadfi, R., Ito, T.: Addressing complexity in multi-issue negotiation via utility hypergraphs. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 28 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hadfi, R., Ito, T.: On the complexity of utility hypergraphs. In: Fukuta, N., Ito, T., Zhang, M., Fujita, K., Robu, V. (eds.) Recent Advances in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation. SCI, vol. 638, pp. 89–105. Springer, Cham (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30307-9_6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Hale, J., Kim, P., Gratch, J.: Preference interdependencies in a multi-issue salary negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pp. 1–8 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M., Kraus, S., Lin, R., Tykhonov. D.: Genius: negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Vol. 2, pp. 1397–1398 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ito, T., Hattori, H., Klein, M.: Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Hyderabad, India, 6–12 January 2007, pp. 1347–1352 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jaffray, J.-Y.: Linear utility theory for belief functions. Oper. Res. Lett. 8(2), 107–112 (1989)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Int. J. Group Decis. Negot. 10(2):199–215 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kattan, A., Fatima. S.: Evolving optimal agendas and strategies for negotiation in dynamic environments: a surrogate based approach. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, pp. 1435–1436 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kelly, F., Key, P., Walton, N., et al.: Incentivized optimal advert assignment via utility decomposition. In: ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. Citeseer (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kirli, D., et al.: Smart contracts in energy systems: a systematic review of fundamental approaches and implementations. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 158, 112013 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Maestre, I.M., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Carral, J.A., Ibanez, G.: A recursive protocol for negotiating contracts under non-monotonic preference structures. Group Decis. Negot. 22(1), 1–43 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mohammad, Y., Nakadai, S., Greenwald, A.: NegMAS: a platform for situated negotiations. In: Aydoğan, R., Ito, T., Moustafa, A., Otsuka, T., Zhang, M. (eds.) ACAN 2019. SCI, vol. 958, pp. 57–75. Springer, Singapore (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-0471-3_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Mohammad, Y., Viqueira, E., Ayerza, N., Greenwald, A., Nakadai, S., Morinaga, S.: Supply Chain Management World, pp. 153–169 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Narayanan, S., Moslemi, R., Pittaluga, F., Liu, B., Chandraker, M.: Divide-and-conquer for lane-aware diverse trajectory prediction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 15799–15808 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Parkes, D.C. Iterative Combinatorial Auctions. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ros, R., Sierra, C.: A negotiation meta strategy combining trade-off and concession moves. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 12(2), 163–181 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sengupta, A., Mohammad, Y., Nakadai, S.: An autonomous negotiating agent framework with reinforcement learning based strategies and adaptive strategy switching mechanism. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-22) (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Simon, H.A.: Bounded rationality. In: Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., Newman, P. (eds.) Utility and Probability, pp. 15–18. Springer, Cham (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20568-4_5

  29. Smith, D.H.: The design of divide and conquer algorithms. Sci. Comput. Program. 5, 37–58 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tang, X., Moustafa, A., Ito, T.: The design of meta-strategy that can obtain higher negotiating efficiency. In: 2018 Thirteenth International Conference on Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems (KICSS)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Tversky, A., Kahneman. D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Weiss, G.: Multiagent Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang, X.: Klein, M.: Hierarchical negotiation model for complex problems with large-number of interdependent issues. In: 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, vol. 2, pp. 126–133 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang, X., Klein, M., Marsá-Maestre, I.: Scalable complex contract negotiation with structured search and agenda management. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 1507–1513, June 2014

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zou, Y., et al.: Text semantic matching with disentangled keywords and intents. http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02898arXiv:2203.02898 (2022)

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by JSPS Kakenhi Grant Number JP20K11936, and JST CREST Grant Number JPMJCR20D1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Zongcan Li, Rafik Hadfi & Takayuki Ito

Authors
  1. Zongcan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafik Hadfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takayuki Ito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zongcan Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Rafik Hadfi

  2. Computer Science, Özyeğin University, Alemdağ, Türkiye

    Reyhan Aydoğan

  3. Department of Social Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Takayuki Ito

  4. Department of Social Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

    Ryuta Arisaka

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Li, Z., Hadfi, R., Ito, T. (2023). Agenda-Based Automated Negotiation Through Utility Decomposition. In: Hadfi, R., Aydoğan, R., Ito, T., Arisaka, R. (eds) Recent Advances in Agent-Based Negotiation: Applications and Competition Challenges. IJCAI 2022. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 1092. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0561-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-0561-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-0560-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-0561-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation