research-article

Free access

Searching for fair joint gains in agent-based negotiation

Authors:

Ryszard KowalczykAuthors Info & Claims

AAMAS '09: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2

Pages 1049 - 1056

Published: 10 May 2009 Publication History

Abstract

In multi-issue negotiations, autonomous agents can act cooperatively to benefit from mutually preferred agreements. However, empirical evidence suggests that they often fail to search for joint gains and end up with inefficient results. To address this problem, this paper proposes a novel mediated negotiation procedure to support the negotiation agents in reaching an efficient and fair agreement in bilateral multi-issue negotiation. At each stage of negotiation, the mediator searches for the compromise direction based on a new EDD (Equal Directional Derivative) approach and computes the new tentative agreement. The numerical analysis presented in this paper demonstrates that the proposed approach not only guarantees Pareto efficiency, but also produces fairer improvements for two negotiating agents compared with other existing methods.

References

[1]

Y. Chevaleyre, U. Endriss, J. Lang, and N. Maudet. Preference handling in combinatorial domains: From AI to social choice. AI Magazine, Special Issue on Preferences, 29(4):37--46, 2008.

[2]

H. Ehtamo, R. Hamalainenen, P. Heiskanen, J. Teich, and M. V. S. Zionts. Generating Pareto solutions in a two party setting: Constraint proposal methods. Management Science, 45:1697--1709, 1999.

Digital Library

[3]

H. Ehtamo, E. Kettunen, and R. Hamalainen. Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research, 127(1):54--69, April 2001.

[4]

H. Ehtamo, M. Verkamaand, and R. Hamalainen. How to select fair improving directions in a negotiation model over continuous issues. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part C: Applications and Reviews, 29:26--33, 1999.

Digital Library

[5]

P. Faratin, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs. In ICMAS '00: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS-2000), pages 119--126, Washington, DC, USA, 2000. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[6]

S. Fatima, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation. Artif. Intell., 152(1):1--45, 2004.

Digital Library

[7]

S. Fatima, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. Optimal negotiation of multiple issues in incomplete information settings. In AAMAS '04: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 1080--1087, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.

Digital Library

[8]

S. Fatima, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. Approximate and online multi-issue negotiation. In AAMAS '07: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 1--8, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.

Digital Library

[9]

R. Fisher and W. Ury. Getting to YES. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1991.

[10]

R. J. Lin and S. cho T. Chou. Mediating a bilateral multi-issue negotiation. In 2003 IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC'03), pages 76--83, 2003.

[11]

R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Cambridge University Press, 1993.

[12]

G. E. Kersten and S. J. Noronha. Rational agents, contract curves, and non-efficient compromises. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 28(3):326--338, 1998.

Digital Library

[13]

G. Lai, C. Li, and K. Sycara. Efficient multi-attribute negotiation with incomplete information. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15:511--528, 2006.

[14]

D. Lax and J. Sebenius. The manager as negotiator: The negotiator's dilemma: Creating and claiming value. in Goldberg, Stephen, Frank Sander and Nancy Rogers, eds. Dispute Resolution. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., pages 49--62, 1992.

[15]

H. Raiffa. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA, 1982.

[16]

S. Saha and S. Sen. An effcient protocol for negotiation over multiple indivisible resources. In IJCAI 2007: Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1494--1499, Hyderabad, India, 2007.

Digital Library

[17]

Q. B. Vo and L. Padgham. Searching for joint gains in automated negotiations based on multi-criteria decision making theory. In AAMAS '07: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 1--8, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM.

Digital Library

[18]

Q. B. Vo, L. Padgham, and L. Cavedon. Negotiating flexible agreements by combining distributive and integrative negotiation. Intelligent Decision Technologies, 1(1--2):33--47, 2007.

Cited By

Rochlin IAumann YSarne DGolosman LBazzan AHuhns MLomuscio AScerri P(2014)Efficiency and fairness in team search with self-interested agentsProceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems10.5555/2615731.2615792(365-372)Online publication date: 5-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2615731.2615792
Noh HOzonat KSinghal SYang Y(2011)A multi-choice offer strategy for bilateral multi-issue negotiations using modified DWM learningProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Electronic Commerce10.1145/2378104.2378111(1-9)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2378104.2378111
de la Hoz ELopez-Carmona MKlein MMarsa-Maestre I(2011)Consensus policy based multi-agent negotiationProceedings of the 14th international conference on Agents in Principle, Agents in Practice10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_14(159-173)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_14
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Searching for fair joint gains in agent-based negotiation
1. Applied computing
  1. Electronic commerce
2. Computing methodologies
  1. Artificial intelligence
    1. Distributed artificial intelligence

Recommendations

On efficient mediation approach to multi-issue negotiation with optimal and fair outcomes
AAMAS '10: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 1

Empirical evidence suggests that self-interested agents often fail to reach optimal agreements in multi-issue negotiations. Most existing negotiation approaches either do not address fairness issues; or do not consider computational concerns. To address ...
A Pareto-efficient and fair mediation approach to multilateral negotiation

In multi-issue negotiations, autonomous agents can act cooperatively to benefit from mutually preferred agreements. However, empirical evidence suggests that autonomous agents often fail to elicit possible joint gains and end up with inefficient results ...
Tasks for agent-based negotiation teams: Analysis, review, and challenges

An agent-based negotiation team is a group of interdependent agents that join together as a single negotiation party due to their shared interests in the negotiation at hand. The reasons to employ an agent-based negotiation team may vary: (i) more ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

AAMAS '09: Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems - Volume 2

May 2009

730 pages

ISBN:9780981738178

General Chairs:
Carles Sierra
Artificial Intelligence Research Institute of the Spanish Research Council (Spain)
,
Cristiano Castelfranchi
ISTC-CNR (Italy)
,
Program Chairs:
Keith S. Decker
University of Delaware
,
Jaime Simão Sichman
Politecnic School, University of São Paulo (Brazil)

Sponsors

Drexel University
Wiley-Blackwell
Microsoft Research: Microsoft Research
Whitestein Technologies
European Office of Aerospace Research and Development, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, United States Air Force Research Laboratory
The Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents

Publisher

International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems

Richland, SC

Publication History

Published: 10 May 2009

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,155 of 5,036 submissions, 23%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

5
Total Citations
View Citations
249
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)47
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 10 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Rochlin IAumann YSarne DGolosman LBazzan AHuhns MLomuscio AScerri P(2014)Efficiency and fairness in team search with self-interested agentsProceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems10.5555/2615731.2615792(365-372)Online publication date: 5-May-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2615731.2615792
Noh HOzonat KSinghal SYang Y(2011)A multi-choice offer strategy for bilateral multi-issue negotiations using modified DWM learningProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Electronic Commerce10.1145/2378104.2378111(1-9)Online publication date: 3-Aug-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2378104.2378111
de la Hoz ELopez-Carmona MKlein MMarsa-Maestre I(2011)Consensus policy based multi-agent negotiationProceedings of the 14th international conference on Agents in Principle, Agents in Practice10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_14(159-173)Online publication date: 16-Nov-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-25044-6_14
Li MLuck MSen S(2010)On efficient mediation approach to multi-issue negotiation with optimal and fair outcomesProceedings of the 9th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: volume 1 - Volume 110.5555/1838206.1838527(1655-1656)Online publication date: 10-May-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1838206.1838527
Lopez-Carmona MMarsa-Maestre IHoz EVelasco J(2009)NegoExplorerProceedings of the 12th International Conference on Principles of Practice in Multi-Agent Systems10.1007/978-3-642-11161-7_18(261-275)Online publication date: 15-Dec-2009
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-11161-7_18

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents