Effective Automated Negotiation Based on Issue Dendrograms and Partial Agreements

Article
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Negotiation is both an important topic in multi-agent systems research and an important aspect of daily life. Many real-world negotiations are complex and involve multiple interdependent issues, therefore, there has been increasing interest in such negotiations. Existing nonlinear automated negotiation protocols have difficulty in finding solutions when the number of issues and agents is large. In automated negotiations covering multiple independent issues, it is useful to separate out the issues and reach separate agreements on each in turn. In this paper, we propose an effective approach to automated negotiations based on recursive partitioning using an issue dendrogram. A mediator first finds partial agreements in each sub-space based on bids from the agents, then combines them to produce the final agreement. When it cannot find a solution, our proposed method recursively decomposes the negotiation sub-problems using an issue dendrogram. In addition, it can improve the quality of agreements by considering previously-found partial consensuses. We also demonstrate experimentally that our protocol generates higher-optimality outcomes with greater scalability than previous methods.

Keywords

Multi-issue negotiation issue dendrogram partial agreement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by CREST, JST (JPMJCR15E1) and JSPS KAKENHI (15H01703).

References

  1. [1]
    Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U. & Maudet, N. (2006). Tractable negotiation in tree-structured domains. In: Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS-2006), pp 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Clauset, A., Newman, M.E. & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E 70(6):066,111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    De Jonge, D. & Sierra, C. (2015). nb3: a multilateral negotiation algorithm for large, non-linear agree-ment spaces with limited time. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 29(5):896–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Eppinger, S.D. (1991). Model-based approaches to managing concurrent engineering. Journal of Engineering Design, 2(4):283–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C. & Jennings N.R. (1998). Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24(3-4):159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N.R. (2000). Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs. In: Proceedinbgs of 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS 2000, Boston, MA, USA, July 10–12, 2000, pp 119–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C. & Jennings, N.R. (2002). Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. In: Artificial Intelligence, pp 142:205–237.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Fujita, K. (2012). The effect of grouping issues in multiple interdependent issues negotiation based on cone-constraints. In: Ito T., Zhang M., Robu V., Fatima S. & Matsuo T. (eds), New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, Springer, pp 39–55.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Fujita, K. (2013). Efficient automated negotiation approach for non-monotonic utility based on tree representations. In: Second IIAI International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI AAI-2013), pp 270–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Fujita, K. (2015). Automated negotiations based on monotonic tree representations. In: Fujita K., Ito T., Zhang M. & Robu V. (eds) Next Frontier in Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation, Springer Japan, pp 59–72.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Fujita, K., Ito, T. & Klein, M. (2014). An approach to scalable multi-issue negotiation: Decomposing the contract space. Computational Intelligence 30(1):30–47.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Hoz, de la E., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Klein M. & Marsa-Maestre I. (2012). Hierarchical clustering and linguistic mediation rules for multiagent negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2012), pp 1259–1260.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Ito, T., Hattori, H. & Klein, M. (2007). Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: Exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2007), pp 1347–1352.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Jennings, NR., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C. & Wooldridge M. (2001). Auto-mated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2):199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Kakimoto, S. & Fujita, K. (2017). Effective automated negotiations based on recursive partitioning by issue dendrogram. In: The Tenth International Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN2017), (This article hasn’t been published.).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H. & Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). Negotiating complex contracts. Group Deci-sion and Negotiation 12(2):58–73.MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Kraus, S. (2001). Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments. Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Lang, F, Fink, A. (2015). Learning from the metaheuristics: Protocols for automated negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 24(2):299–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Lopez-Carmona, M., Marsa-Maestre, I., Klein, M. & Ito, T. (2010). Addressing stability issues in mediated complex contract negotiations for constraint-based, non-monotonic utility spaces. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems pp 1–51.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Luo, X., Jennings, NR., Shadbolt, N., Leung, H. & Lee, J.H. (2003). A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence 148:53–102.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    Malone, T.W. & Klein, M. (2007). Harnessing collective intelligence to address global climate change. Innovations Journal 2(3):15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R. & de la, Hoz E. (2010). Avoiding the prisoner’s dilemma in auction-based negotiations for highly rugged utility spaces. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2010), pp 425–432.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, MA., Carral, JA. & Ibanez, G. (2013). A recursive protocol for nego-tiating contracts under non-monotonic preference structures. Group Decision and Negotiation 22(1):1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Rosenschein, J.S, Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of Encounter. MIT Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Russell, S.J. & Norvig, P. (2002). Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Tamura, H. & Nakamura, Y. (1983). Decompositions of multiattribute utility functions based on convex dependence. Operations Research 31(3):488–506.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Zhang, XS., Klein, M. & Marsa-Maestre, I. (2014). Scalable complex contract negotiation with struc-tured search and agenda management. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2014), pp 1507–1513.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Systems Engineering Society of China and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EngineeringTokyo University of Agriculture and TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations