skip to main content
research-article

An Intelligent Agent for Bilateral Negotiation with Unknown Opponents in Continuous-Time Domains

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 October 2014Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Automated negotiation among self-interested autonomous agents has gained tremendous attention due to the diversity of its broad range of potential real-world applications. This article deals with a prominent type of such negotiations, namely, multiissue negotiation that runs under continuous-time constraints and in which the negotiating agents have no prior knowledge about their opponents’ preferences and strategies. A negotiation strategy called Dragon is described that employs sparse pseudoinput Gaussian processes. Specifically, Dragon enables an agent (1) to precisely model the behavior of its opponents with comparably low computational load and (2) to make decisions effectively and adaptively in very complex negotiation settings. Extensive experimental results, based on a number of negotiation scenarios and state-of-the-art negotiating agents from Automated Negotiating Agents Competitions, are provided. Moreover, the robustness of our strategy is evaluated through both empirical game-theoretic and spatial evolutionary game-theoretic analysis.

References

  1. Sunil Adhau, M. L. Mittal, and Abhinav Mittal. 2012. A multi-agent system for distributed multi-project scheduling: An auction-based negotiation approach. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 25, 8, 1738--1751. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Tim Baarslag, Katsuhide Fujita, Enrico H. Gerding, Koen Hindriks, Takayuki Ito, Nicholas R. Jennings, Catholijn Jonker, Sarit Kraus, Raz Lin, Valentin Robu, and Colin R. Williams. 2013. Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence 198, 73--103. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jakub Brzostowski and Ryszard Kowalczyk. 2006. Predicting partner’s behaviour in agent negotiation. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 355--361. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Réal Carbonneau, Gregory E. Kersten, and Rustam Vahidov. 2008. Predicting opponent’s moves in electronic negotiations using neural networks. Expert Systems with Applications 34, 2, 1266--1273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Siqi Chen, Haitham Bou Ammar, Karl Tuyls, and Gerhard Weiss. 2013a. Optimizing complex automated negotiation using sparse pseudo-input Gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Automomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 707--714. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Siqi Chen, Haitham Bou Ammar, Karl Tuyls, and Gerhard Weiss. 2013b. Using conditional restricted Boltzmann machine for highly competitive negotiation tasks. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Palo Alto, CA, 69--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Siqi Chen and Gerhard Weiss. 2012. An efficient and adaptive approach to negotiation in complex environments. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. IOS, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 228--233.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Siqi Chen and Gerhard Weiss. 2013. An efficient automated negotiation strategy for complex environments. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 26, 10, 2613--2623. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Robert M. Coehoorn and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2004. Learning on opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Electronic Commerce. ACM, New York, NY, 59--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 1998. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24, 4, 159--182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Peyman Faratin, Carles Sierra, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2002. Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142, 2, 205--237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Jianye Hao and Hofung Leung. 2012. ABiNeS: An adaptive bilateral negotiating strategy over multiple items. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, Vol. 2 (WI-IAT’12). IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, 95--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Mark Hendrikx. 2011. A Survey of Opponent Models in Automated Negotiation. Technical Report. Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Koen Hindriks, Catholijn Jonker, Sarit Kraus, Raz Lin, and Dmytro Tykhonov. 2009b. GENIUS: Negotiation environment for heterogeneous agents. In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 1397--1398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Koen Hindriks, Catholijn M. Jonker, and Dmytro Tykhonov. 2009a. The benefits of opponent models in negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies (WI-IAT’09). 439--444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Koen Hindriks and Dmytro Tykhonov. 2008. Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using Bayesian learning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 331--338. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nick R. Jennings, Peyman Faratin, Alessio R. Lomuscio, Simon Parsons, Carles Sierra, and Michael Wooldridge. 2001. Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 2, 199--215.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Patrick R. Jordan, Christopher Kiekintveld, and Michael P. Wellman. 2007. Empirical game-theoretic analysis of the TAC supply chain game. In Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’07). ACM, New York, NY, 1188--1195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Timothy Killingback and Michael Doebeli. 1996. Spatial evolutionary game theory: Hawks and Doves revisited. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 263, 1374, 1135--1144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Raz Lin, Sarit Kraus, Jonathan Wilkenfeld, and James Barry. 2008. Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence 172, 6--7, 823--851. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Fernando Lopes, Michael Wooldridge, and Augusto Novais. 2008. Negotiation among autonomous computational agents: Principles, analysis and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review 29, 1, 1--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Dirk C. Moosmayer, Alain Yee-Loong Chong, Martin J. Liu, and Bjoern Schuppar. 2013. A neural network approach to predicting price negotiation outcomes in business-to-business contexts. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 8, 3028--3035. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Vidya Narayanan and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2006. Learning to negotiate optimally in non-stationary environments. In Cooperative Information Agents X. Springer, 288--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Samir Abdel Rahman, Reem Bahgat, and George M. Farag. 2011. Order statistics Bayesian-mining agent modelling for automated negotiation. Informatica: An International Journal of Computing and Informatics 35, 1, 123--137.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Howard Raiffa. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Carl E. Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams. 2006. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ariel Rubinstein. 1982. Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50, 1, 97--109.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Sabyasachi Saha, Anish Biswas, and Sandip Sen. 2005. Modeling opponent decision in repeated one-shot negotiations. In Proceedings of the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, New York, NY, 397--403. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Victor Sanchez-Anguix, Vicente Julian, Vicente Botti, and Ana Garła-Fornes. 2013. Tasks for agent-based negotiation teams: Analysis, review, and challenges. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 26, 10, 2480--2494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Edward Snelson and Zoubin Ghahramani. 2006. Sparse Gaussian processes using pseudo-inputs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1257--1264.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. György Szabó and Gábor Fáth. 2007. Evolutionary games on graphs. Physics Reports 446, 4, 97--216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Colin R. Williams, Valentin Robu, Enrico H. Gerding, and Nicholas R. Jennings. 2011. Using Gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Palo Alto, CA, 432--438. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. H. Peyton Young. 1993. The evolution of conventions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 61, 1, 57--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Dajun Zeng and Katia Sycara. 1997. Benefits of learning in negotiation. In Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI, Palo Alto, CA, 36--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An Intelligent Agent for Bilateral Negotiation with Unknown Opponents in Continuous-Time Domains

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!