A Generic Framework for Automated Multi-attribute Negotiation



Agents in a negotiation may have to negotiate multiple issues simultaneously. Automated multi-attribute negotiation provides an important mechanism for distributed decision makers to reach agreements on multiple issues. Moreover, it also furnishes the opportunity to reach “win–win” solutions. In this paper, we first provide a survey that synthesizes the research on multi-attribute negotiation. We discuss the limitations of the existing research and conclude that three key issues need further study: incomplete information, Pareto optimality, and tractability. We then present a generic framework for automated multi-attribute negotiation with two new mechanisms that address the above issues. Finally, we discuss the challenges and directions for future work.


Automated multi-attribute negotiation Incomplete information Pareto optimality Mediating Win–win 


  1. Bac M, Raff H (1996) Issue-by-issue negotiations: the role of information and time preference. Games Econ Behav 13: 125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Busch L-A, Horstmann IJ (1997a) A comment on issue-by-issue negotiations. Games Econ Behav 19: 144–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Busch L-A, Horstmann IJ (1997b) Bargaining frictions, bargaining procedures and implied costs in multiple-issue bargaining. Economica 64: 669–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Busch L-A, Horstmann IJ (1999a) Endogenous incomplete contracts: a bargaining approach. Can J Econ 32: 956–975Google Scholar
  5. Busch L-A, Horstmann IJ (1999b) Signaling via an agenda in multi-issue bargaining with incomplete information. Econ Theory 13: 561–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busch L-A, Horstmann IJ (2002) The game of negotiations: ordering issues and implementing agreements. Games Econ Beha 41: 169–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen L, Pu P (2004) Survey of preference elicitation methods. EPFL Technical Report IC/2004/67, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Chevaleyre Y, Endriss U, Lang J, Maudet N (2005) Negotiating over small bundles of resources. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp 296–302Google Scholar
  9. Coehoorn RM, Jennings NR (2004) Learning an opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation tradeoffs. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on E-commerce, pp 59–68Google Scholar
  10. Ehtamo H, Hamalainen RP, Heiskanen P, Teich J, Verkama M, Zionts S (1999) Generating Pareto solutions in a two-party setting: constraint proposal methods. Manage Sci 45: 1697–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Int J Rob Auton Syst 24: 159–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (2002) Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artif Intell 142: 205–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fatima S, Wooldridge MJ, Jennings NR (2004a) An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation. Artif Intell 152: 1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fatima S, Wooldridge MJ, Jennings NR (2004b) Optimal negotiation of multiple issues in incomplete information settings. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp 1080–1087Google Scholar
  15. Hanson J, Tesauro G, Kephart J, Sniblesome E (2003) Multi-agent implementation of asymmetric protocol for bilateral negotiations. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce 2003, pp 224–225Google Scholar
  16. Kalai E (1977) Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: intertemporal utility comparisons. Econometrica 45: 1623–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klein M, Faratin P, Sayama H, Bar-Yam Y (2003) Negotiating complex contracts. Group Decis Negot 12: 111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lai G, Li C, Sycara K, Giampapa J (2004) Literature review of multi-attribute negotiations. Technical Report, CMU-RI-TR-04–66. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Lai G, Li C, Sycara K (2006a) Efficient multi-attribute negotiation with incomplete information. Group Dec Negot 15: 511–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lai G, Sycara K, Li C (2006b) A decentralized model for multi-attribute negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC), pp 3–10Google Scholar
  21. Lang K, Rosenthal RW (2001) Bargaining piecemeal or all at once. Econ J 111: 526–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li C, Tesauro G (2003) A strategic decision model for multi-attribute bilateral negotiation with alternating offers. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce 2003, pp 208–209Google Scholar
  23. Li C, Giampapa J, Sycara K (2006) Bilateral negotiation decisions with uncertain dynamic outside options. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern C: Special Issue on Game-theoretic Anal Stoch Simul Negot Agents 36(1): 31–44Google Scholar
  24. Luo X, Jennings NR, Shadbolt N, Leung H, Lee JH (2003) A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artif Intell 148: 53–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mas-Colell A, Whinston MD, Green JR (1995) Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Nash J (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18: 155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robu V, Somefun D, La Poutre J (2005) Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pp 280–287Google Scholar
  28. Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50: 97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sycara K (1990a) Persuasive argumentation in negotiation. Theory Decis 28: 203–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sycara K (1990b) Negotiation planning: an AI approach. Eur J Opera Res 46: 216–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sycara K (1991) Problem restructuring in negotiation. Manage Sci 37: 1248–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tepper School of BusinessCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations