Learning the Structure of Utility Graphs Used in Multi-issue Negotiation through Collaborative Filtering

Preliminary Version
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4078)


Graphical utility models represent powerful formalisms for modeling complex agent decisions involving multiple issues [2]. In the context of negotiation, it has been shown [10] that using utility graphs enables reaching Pareto-efficient agreements with a limited number of negotiation steps, even for high-dimensional negotiations involving complex complementarity/ substitutability dependencies between multiple issues. This paper considerably extends the results of [10], by proposing a method for constructing the utility graphs of buyers automatically, based on previous negotiation data. Our method is based on techniques inspired from item-based collaborative filtering, used in online recommendation algorithms. Experimental results show that our approach is able to retrieve the structure of utility graphs online, with a high degree of accuracy, even for highly non-linear settings and even if a relatively small amount of data about concluded negotiations is available.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bollobas, B.: Random Graphs. Academic Press, London (1985)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chajewska, U., Koller, D.: Utilities as random variables: Density estimation and structure discovery. In: Proceedings of sixteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence UAI 2000, pp. 63–71 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Debenham, J.K.: Bargaining with information. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS), New York, July 19-23, 2004, pp. 663–670 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerding, E., Somefun, D.J.A., La Poutré, J.A.: Multi-attribute bilateral bargaining in a one-to-many setting. In: Faratin, P., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.-A. (eds.) AMEC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3435, pp. 129–142. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., Bar-Yam, Y.: Negotiating complex contracts. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 111–125 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, R.: Bilateral multi-issue contract negotiation for task redistribution using a mediation service. In: Proc. Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce VI, New York, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coehoorn, R.M., Jennings, N.R.: Learning an opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation tradeoffs. In: Proc. 6th Int Conf. on E-Commerce, Delft (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Sierra, C.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence 142(2), 205–237 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raiffa, H.: The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachussets USA (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robu, V., Somefun, D.J.A., La Poutré, J.A.: Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs. In: 4th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS), Utrecht, The Netherlands (2005) (to appear as full paper),
  11. 11.
    Jennings, N., Fatima, S., Woolridge, M.: Optimal negotiation of multiple issues in incomplete information settings. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents & Multi Agent Systems (AAMAS), New York, pp. 1080–1087 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., Riedl, J.: Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In: Tenth International WWW Conference (WWW10), Hong Kong (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Somefun, D.J.A., Klos, T.B., La Poutré, J.A.: Online learning of aggregate knowledge about nonlinear preferences applied to negotiating prices and bundles. In: Proc. 6th Int Conf. on E-Commerce, Delft, pp. 361–370 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shadbolt, N., Leung, H., Lee, J.H., Luo, X., Jennings, N.R.: A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence Journal 142(1-2), 53–102 (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CWIDutch National Research Center for Mathematics and Computer ScienceAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations