Advertisement

Bilateral Negotiation with Incomplete and Uncertain Information: A Decision-Theoretic Approach Using a Model of the Opponent

  • Chhaya Mudgal
  • Julita Vassileva
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1860)

Abstract

The application of software agents to e-commerce has made a radical change in the way businesses and consumer to consumer transactions take place. Agent negotiation is an important aspect of e-commerce to bring satisfactory agreement in business transactions. We approach e-commerce and negotiation in the context of a distributed multiagent peer help system, I-Help, supporting students in a university course. Personal agents keep models of student preferences and negotiate on their behalf to acquire resources (help) from other agents. We model negotiation among personal agents by means of influence diagram, a decision theoretic tool. To cope with the uncertainty inherent in a dynamic market with self-interested participants, the agents create models of their opponents during negotiation, which help them predict better their opponents’ actions. We carried out experiments comparing the proposed negotiation mechanism with influence diagram, one using in addition a model of the opponent and one using a simple heuristic approach (as a base for comparison). The results show some of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed negotiation mechanisms.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Carmel, D., Markovitch, S.: Learning Models of Intelligent Agents. In: Proceedings of Third International Conference on Multiagent Systems, pp. 64–71 (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Durfee, E., Lesser, V.: Negotiating Task Decomposition and Allocation Using Partial Global Planning. In: Huhns, L., Gasser, M. (eds.) Distributed Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 229–243. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harsanyi, J.: Rational Behaviour and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maes, P., Guttman, R., Moukas, G.: Agents that Buy and Sell. Communications of the ACM 42(3), 81–83 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Suryadi, D., Gmytasiewicz, P.: Learning Models of Other Agents using Influence Diagrams. In: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on User Modeling, pp. 223–232 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park, S., Durfee, E., Birmingham, W.: Advantages of Strategic Thinking in Multiagent Contracts. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 259–266 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preist, C.: Commodity Trading Using An Agent-Based Iterated Double Auction. In: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents, pp. 131–138 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sathi, A., Fox, S.: Constraint Directed Negotiation of Resource Allocation. Distributed Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, pp. 163–194. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shachter, R.: Probabilistic inference and influence diagrams. Operations Research 36(4), 589–604 (1988)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shachter, R.: Evaluating Influence Diagrams. Operations Research 34(6), 871–882 (1986)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sycara, K.: Resolving goal conflicts via Negotiation. In: Proceedings Seventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (1988)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vassileva, J., Greer, J., McCalla, G., Deters, R., Zapata, D., Mudgal, C., Grant, S.: A Multi-Agent Approach to the Design of Peer-Help Environments. In: Proceedings of AIED 1999, Le Mans, France, July 1999, pp. 38–45 (1999), also available on line at http://julita.usask.ca/homepage/Agents.html
  13. 13.
    Vidal, J., Durfee, E.: The Impact of Nested Agent Models in an Information Economy. In: Proceedings of Second International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 377–384 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zheng, D., Sycara, K.: Benefits of Learning in Negotiation. In: Proceedings of Fifteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 36–41 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J.: Cooperation and Conflict Resolution via Negotiation among Autonomous Agents in Non Cooperative Domains. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 21(6), 1317–1332 (1991)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J.: Negotiation and Task Sharing among Autonomous Agents in Cooperative Domains. In: Proceedings of Eleventh International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 912–917 (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chhaya Mudgal
    • 1
  • Julita Vassileva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanCanada

Personalised recommendations