Architecting for Reuse: A Software Framework for Automated Negotiation

  • Claudio Bartolini
  • Chris Preist
  • Nicholas R. Jennings
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2585)


If agents are to negotiate automatically with one another they must share a negotiation mechanism, specifying what possible actions each party can take at any given time, when negotiation terminates, and what the resulting agreements will be. The current state-of-the-art represents this as a negotiation protocol specifying the flow of messages. However, they omit other aspects of the rules of negotiation (such as obliging a participant to improve on a previous offer), requiring these to be represented implicitly in an agent’s design, potentially resulting in compatibility, maintenance and re-usability problems. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach, allowing all of a mechanism to be formal and explicit.We present (i) A taxonomy of declarative rules which can be used to capture a wide variety of negotiation mechanisms in a principled and well-structured way. (ii) A simple interaction protocol, which is able to support any mechanism which can be captured using the declarative rules. (iii) A software framework for negotiation, implemented in JADE [3] that allows agents to effectively participate in negotiations defined using our rule taxonomy and protocol.


Software Framework Negotiation Protocol English Auction Automate Negotiation Negotiation Mechanism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Artikis, J. Pitt, and M. Sergot. Animated specifications of computational societies. In Proceedings of Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS), 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Claudio Bartolini, Chris Preist, and Nicholas R. Jennings. A generic software framwork for automated negotiation. HP Technical Report, TR 2002-2. 2002.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fabio Bollifomminc, Agostino Poggi, and Giovanni Rimassa. Jado-a fipa compliant agent framework.In 4th International Conference on Practical Applications of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andrew Byde, Chris Preist, and Nicholas R. Jennings. Decision procedures for multiple auctions. In Proceedings of the 1st Joint International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, to appear, 2002.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marcus Fontoura, Mihail Ionescu, and Naftaly Minsky. Law-governed peer-to-peer auctions. In Proceedings of Eleventh World Wide Web Conference (WWW-2002), 2002.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foundation for Physical Agents. Fipa abstract architecture specification. 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    O. Hoffmann, M. Stumptner, and T Chalabi.A perspective based approach to design. In Workshop on Planning, Scheduling and Configuration; KI2U01, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    N. R. Jennings, T. J. Norman, and P. Faratin. ADEPT: An agent-based approach to business process management. ACM SIGMOD Record, 27(4):32–39, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Naftaly H. Minsky and Victoria Ungureanu. Law-governed interaction: a coordination and control mechanism for heterogeneous distributed systems. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 9(3):273–305, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simon Parsons, Carles Sierra, and Nick Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261–292, 1998.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Daniel M. Reeves. Michael P. Wellman. and Benjamin N. Grosof. Automated negotiation from declarative contract descriptions. In Jorg P. Miillor, Elisabeth Andre, Sandip Sen, and Claude Frasson, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 51–58, Montreal, Canada, 2001. ACM Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Valentina Tamma, Michael Wooldridge, and Ian Dickinson.An ontology based approach to automated negotiation. In Proceedings of Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce IV (AMEC-IV), 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    David Trastour, Claudio Bartolini, and Chris Preist. Semantic web support for the business-to-business e-commerce lifecycle. In Proceedings of Eleventh World Wide Web Conference (WWW-2002). 2002.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Wurman, M. Wellman, and W. Walsh. A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior, 35(l–2):304–338, 2000.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peter R. Wurman, Michael P. Wellman, and William E. Walsh. The Michigan Internet AuctionBot: A configurable auction server for human and software agents. In Katia P. Sycara and Michael Wooldridge, editors, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents’98), pages 301–308, New York, 9–13, 1998. ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Bartolini
    • 1
  • Chris Preist
    • 1
  • Nicholas R. Jennings
    • 2
  1. 1.HP LaboratoriesBristolUK
  2. 2.Dept. of Electronics and Computer ScienceUniversity of SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations