Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 1–23 | Cite as

Multi-Agent Negotiation Using Linguistically Expressed Mediation Rules



The problem of multi-agent negotiation is considered. We provide an framework for the multi-agent negotiation process in which each of the participating agents provides a preference function over the set of alternatives. This framework involves a mediation step in which the individual agent preference functions are aggregated to obtain a group preference function. The determination of the satisfaction of a stopping rule which decides whether a suitable final group preference function has been obtained or whether the agents must participate in another round of mediation. It also involves a selection procedure for choosing a alternative based on the final group preference function. We describe various implementations for these different steps. Considerable interest is focused on the implementation of the mediation rule where we allow for a linguistic description of the rule using fuzzy logic. A particularly notable feature of our approach is the inclusion in the mediation step of a mechanism rewarding the agents for being open to alternatives other then simply their most preferred.


mediation OWA operators preference aggregation agents fuzzy sets 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. John Wiley & Sons: New York.Google Scholar
  2. Bartolini, C., C. Preist, and N. R. Jennings. (2005). “A software framework for automated negotiation,” in R. Choren, A. Garcia, C. Lucena and A. Ramonovsky, (eds.), Software Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems III: Research Issues and Practical Applications. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  3. Beer, M., M. d'Inverno, M. Luck, N. R. Jennings, C. Preist, and M. Schroeder. (1999). “Negotiation in multi-agent systems,” Knowledge Engineering Review 14, 285–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellman, R. E. and L. A. Zadeh. (1970). “Decision-making in a fuzzy environment,” Management Science 17(4), 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Faratin, P., C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. (1997). “Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents,” Int. J. of Robotics and Autonomous Agents 24, 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jennings, N. R. and M. Wooldridge. (1998). Agent Technology: Foundations, Applications, and Markets, Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  7. Kaufmann, A. (1975). Introduction to the Theory of Fuzzy Subsets: Volume I, Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
  8. Klement, E. P., R. Mesiar, and E. Pap. (2000). Triangular Norms, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Kraus, K. (2001). Strategic Negotiation in Multi-Agent Environments, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Nash, J. F. (1950). “The bargaining problem,” Econometrica 18, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Parsons, S., P. Gmytrasiewicz, and M. Wooldridge. (2002). Game Theory and Decision Theory in Agent-based Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Rosenschein, J. S. and G. Zlotkin. (1994). “Designing conventions for automated negotiation,” AI Magazine 15(3), 29–46.Google Scholar
  13. Wooldridge, M. (2002). An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, John Wiley and Son: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Yager, R. R. (1988). “On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multi-criteria decision making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 18, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yager, R. R. (1993). “Families of OWA operators,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 59, 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Yager, R. R. (1996). “Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators,” International Journal of Intelligent Systems 11, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Yager, R. R. (1997). “On the inclusion of importances in OWA aggregations,” in Yager, R. R. and J. Kacprzyk (eds.), The Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators: Theory and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Norwell, MA, 41–59.Google Scholar
  18. Yager, R. R. (1997). “Protocol for negotiations among multiple intelligent agents,” in Kacprzyk, J., H. Nurmi and M. Fedrizzi, (eds.), Consensus Under Fuzziness. Academic Publishers: Boston, MA, 165–174.Google Scholar
  19. Yager, R. R. (2003). “E-Z OWA weights,” Proceedings of the 10th International Fuzzy Systems Association World Congress-IFSA, Istanbul, 39–42.Google Scholar
  20. Yager, R. R. (2004). “Multiagent preference aggregation using fuzzy quantifiers,” Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Decision Theoretic and Game Theoretic Agents at Third International Joint Conference of Autonomous Agents and Multi Agent Systems, New York City, 111–118.Google Scholar
  21. Yager, R. R. and J. Kacprzyk. (1997). The Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators: Theory and Applications, Kluwer: Norwell, MA.Google Scholar
  22. Zadeh, L. A. (1979). “A theory of approximate reasoning,” in Hayes, J., D. Michie and L. I. Mikulich (eds.), Machine Intelligence, Vol. 9.Halstead Press: New York, 149–194.Google Scholar
  23. Zadeh, L. A. (1983). “A computational approach to fuzzy quantifiers in natural languages,” Computing and Mathematics with Applications 9, 149–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Machine Intelligence InstituteIona CollegeNew RochelleU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations