Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Metastrategies in Large-Scale Bargaining Settings

Published: 01 October 2015 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    This article presents novel methods for representing and analyzing a special class of multiagent bargaining settings that feature multiple players, large action spaces, and a relationship among players’ goals, tasks, and resources. We show how to reduce these interactions to a set of bilateral normal-form games in which the strategy space is significantly smaller than the original settings while still preserving much of their structural relationship. The method is demonstrated using the Colored Trails (CT) framework, which encompasses a broad family of games and has been used in many past studies. We define a set of heuristics (metastrategies) in multiplayer CT games that make varying assumptions about players’ strategies, such as boundedly rational play and social preferences. We show how these CT settings can be decomposed into canonical bilateral games such as the Prisoners’ Dilemma, Stag Hunt, and Ultimatum games in a way that significantly facilitates their analysis. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach in separate CT settings involving one-shot and repeated bargaining scenarios, which are subsequently analyzed using evolutionary game-theoretic techniques. We provide a set of necessary conditions for CT games for allowing this decomposition. Our results have significance for multiagent systems researchers in mapping large multiplayer CT task settings to smaller, well-known bilateral normal-form games while preserving some of the structure of the original setting.

    References

    [1]
    R. Aras, A. Dutech, and F. Charpillet. 2006. Computing the equilibria of bimatrix games using dominance heuristics. In 18th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI’06), November 13--15, 2006, Arlington, VA. 773--782.
    [2]
    D. Bloembergen, D. Hennes, S. Parsons, and K. Tuyls. 2015. Survival of the chartist: An evolutionary agent-based analysis of stock market trading. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM.
    [3]
    T. Börgers and R. Sarin. 1997. Learning through reinforcement and replicator dynamics. Journal of Economic Theory 77, 1, 1--14.
    [4]
    Y.-H. Chang, T. Levinboim, and R. Maheswaran. 2012. The social ultimatum game. In Decision Making with Imperfect Decision Makers. Springer, 135--158.
    [5]
    S. de Jong, K. Tuyls, and K. Verbeeck. 2008. Fairness in multi-agent systems. Knowledge Engineering Review 23, 2, 153--180.
    [6]
    E. Fehr and K. Schmidt. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114, 817--868.
    [7]
    Y. Gal, B. Grosz, S. Kraus, A. Pfeffer, and S. Shieber. 2010. Agent decision-making in open-mixed networks. Artificial Intelligence 174, 18, 1460--1480.
    [8]
    Y. Gal and A. Pfeffer. 2007. Modeling reciprocal behavior in human bilateral negotiation. In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 815--820.
    [9]
    H. Gintis. 2000. Game Theory Evolving. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
    [10]
    S. Gjerstad and J. Dickhaut. 1998. Price formation in double auctions. Games and Economic Behavior 22, 1, 1--29.
    [11]
    B. Grosskopf. 2003. Reinforcement and directional learning in the ultimatum game with responder competition. Experimental Economics 6, 2, 141--158.
    [12]
    B. J. Grosz, S. Kraus, S. Talman, B. Stossel, and M. Havlin. 2004. The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: Initial investigations with a new game. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Vol. 2. 782--789.
    [13]
    W. Güth, R. Schmittberger, and B. Schwarze. 1982. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 3, 4, 367--388.
    [14]
    G. Haim, Y. Gal, S. Kraus, and B. An. 2014. Equilibrium strategies for human-computer negotiation in 3-player market settings. In 21st European Conference on AI (ECAI’14).
    [15]
    G. Haim, Y. Gal, S. Kraus, and Y. Blumberg. 2010. Learning human negotiation behavior across cultures. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation.
    [16]
    C. Hauert. 2010. Ultimatum game with proposer competition. GameLab experiments.
    [17]
    D. Hennes, D. Bloembergen, M. Kaisers, K. Tuyls, and S. Parsons. 2012. Evolutionary advantage of foresight in markets. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference. Philadelphia, PA, 943--949.
    [18]
    D. Hennes, K. Tuyls, M. A. Neerincx, and G. W. M. Rauterberg. 2009. Micro-scale social network analysis for ultra-long space flights. In Proceedings of the IJCAI Workshop on Artificial Intelligence in Space,Pasadena, CA.
    [19]
    J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, and H. Gintis (Eds.). 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. Oxford University Press.
    [20]
    J. Hofbauer and K. Sigmund. 1998. Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. Cambridge University Press.
    [21]
    D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky. 1982. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
    [22]
    M. Kaisers, K. Tuyls, F. Thuijsman, and S. Parsons. 2009. Auction analysis by normal form game approximation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology. Vol. 2. IEEE, 447--450.
    [23]
    E. Kamar, Y. Gal, and B. J. Grosz. 2009. Modeling user perception of interaction opportunities for effective teamwork. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Science and Engineering. Vol. 4. IEEE, 271--277.
    [24]
    I. A. Kash, E. J. Friedman, and J. Y. Halpern. 2011. Multiagent learning in large anonymous games. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 571--598.
    [25]
    R. Lin, S. Kraus, T. Baarslag, D. Tykhonov, K. Hindriks, and C. M. Jonker. 2014. Genius: An integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Computational Intelligence 30, 1, 48--70.
    [26]
    J. M. Smith. 1974. The theory of games and the evolution of animal conflicts. Journal of Theoretical Biology 47, 1, 209--221.
    [27]
    D. M. Messick and M. B. Brewer. 1983. Solving social dilemmas: A review. Review of Personality and Social Psychology 4, 11--44.
    [28]
    A. Nowé, K. Verbeeck, and M. Peeters. 2006. Learning automata as a basis for multi agent reinforcement learning. In Learning and Adaption in Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, 71--85.
    [29]
    H. Oosterbeek, R. Sloof, and G. van de Kuilen. 2004. Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics 7, 2, 171--188.
    [30]
    S. Phelps, K. Cai, P. McBurney, J. Niu, S. Parsons, and E. Sklar. 2008. Auctions, evolution, and multi-agent learning. In Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agent Systems III. Adaptation and Multi-Agent Learning. Springer, 188--210.
    [31]
    S. Phelps, M. Marcinkiewicz, and S. Parsons. 2001. A novel method for automatic strategy acquisition in n-player non-zero-sum games. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. Springer, 705--712.
    [32]
    M. Ponsen, K. Tuyls, M. Kaisers, and J. Ramon. 2009. An evolutionary game-theoretic analysis of poker strategies. Entertainment Computing 1, 39--45.
    [33]
    M. J. V. Ponsen, J. Ramon, T. Croonenborghs, K. Driessens, and K. Tuyls. 2008. Bayes-relational learning of opponent models from incomplete information in no-limit poker. In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1485--1486.
    [34]
    W. H. Sandholm. 2011. Population Games and Evolutionary Dynamics. MIT Press.
    [35]
    P. D. Taylor and L. Jonker. 1978. Evolutionary stable strategies and game dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences 40, 145--156.
    [36]
    M. L. Tsetlin. 1962. On the behavior of finite automata in random media. Automation and Remote Control 22, 1210--1219.
    [37]
    K. Tuyls, K. Verbeeck, and T. Lenaerts. 2003. A selection-mutation model for q-learning in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, 693--700.
    [38]
    W. E. Walsh, R. Das, G. Tesauro, and J. O. Kephart. 2002. Analyzing complex strategic interactions in multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Game-Theoretic and Decision-Theoretic Agents. 109--118.
    [39]
    W. E. Walsh, D. C. Parkes, and R. Das. 2004. Choosing samples to compute heuristic-strategy Nash equilibrium. Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce V, 109--123.
    [40]
    J. W. Weibull. 1995. Evolutionary Game Theory. MIT Press.
    [41]
    J. W. Weibull. 1997. What Have We Learned from Evolutionary Game Theory So Far? Technical Report 487. Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN).
    [42]
    B. Wiedenbeck and M. P. Wellman. 2012. Scaling simulation-based game analysis through deviation-preserving reduction. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. ACM, 931--938.

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2017)A Negotiation Framework with Strategies Based on Agent Preferences2017 21st International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science (CSCS)10.1109/CSCS.2017.81(529-535)Online publication date: May-2017
    • (2016)Space Debris Removal: A Game Theoretic AnalysisGames10.3390/g70300207:3(20)Online publication date: 11-Aug-2016

    Index Terms

    1. Metastrategies in Large-Scale Bargaining Settings

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology
      ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology  Volume 7, Issue 1
      October 2015
      293 pages
      ISSN:2157-6904
      EISSN:2157-6912
      DOI:10.1145/2830012
      • Editor:
      • Yu Zheng
      Issue’s Table of Contents
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 01 October 2015
      Accepted: 01 July 2015
      Revised: 01 May 2015
      Received: 01 November 2014
      Published in TIST Volume 7, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Multiagent systems
      2. decision making
      3. negotiation

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

      Funding Sources

      • EU FP7 FET
      • Israeli Science Foundation (ISF)

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)5
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
      Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all
      • (2017)A Negotiation Framework with Strategies Based on Agent Preferences2017 21st International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science (CSCS)10.1109/CSCS.2017.81(529-535)Online publication date: May-2017
      • (2016)Space Debris Removal: A Game Theoretic AnalysisGames10.3390/g70300207:3(20)Online publication date: 11-Aug-2016

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      Full Access

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media