Advertisement

Effects of GA Based Mediation Protocol for Utilities that Change Over Time

  • Keisuke Hara
  • Takayuki Ito
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 596)

Abstract

Multiple-issue negotiation has been extensively studied because most real-world negotiations involve multiple, interdependent issues. Our work focuses on negotiations involving multiple interdependent issues in which the agent utility functions are complex and nonlinear. Because these issues are interdependent, they cannot be negotiated one at a time. The decision on one issue is dependent on the decisions on previous and subsequent issues. In the literature, several negotiation protocols have been proposed: bidding-based protocol; constraints-based protocol; secure SA (security association)-based protocol; etc. However, all assume that utility does not change over time, whereas, in reality, this may not be the case. In this paper, we focus on finding and following the “Pareto front” of the changing utility space over time. To find and follow the Pareto front effectively, we employ an evolutionary negotiation mechanism in which the mediator takes the lead in negotiations based on the genetic algorithm (GA). The experimental results show that our approach is able to follow the change in the utility space’s shape over time and achieve consensus building even with large-scale negotiation problems, such as when the number of agents is 100.

Keywords

Multi-issue negotiation Interdependent issues Change over time GA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is partially supported by the Funding Program for Next Generation World-Leading Researchers (NEXT Program) of the Japan Cabinet Office.

References

  1. 1.
    Barbuceanu, M., Lo, W.-K.: Multi-attribute utility theoretic negotiation for electronic commerce. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce (AMEC2000) (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M.: Human vs. computer behaviour in multi-issue negotiation. In: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 11–24 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fatima, S.S.: Approximate and online multi-issue negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Optimal negotiation of multiple issues in incomplete information settings. In: Proceedings of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: An analysis of feasible solutions for multi-issue negotiation involving nonlinear utility functions. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pp. 1041–1048 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Faratin, C.P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artif. Intell. 142, 205–237 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fujita, K., Ito, T.: An approach to implementing a threshold adjusting mechanism in very complex negotiations: a preliminary result. In: KICSS2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gul, F., Pesendorfer, W.: Self-control, revealed preference and consumption choice. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 7, 243–264 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gul, F., Pesendorfer, W.: Self-control and the theory of consumption. Econometrica 72, 119–158 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hindriks, K., Jonker, C.M., Tykhonov, D.: Eliminating interdependencies between issues for multi-issue negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cooperative Information Agents, pp. 301–316 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ito, I., Klein, M.: A consensus optimization mechanism among agents based on genetic algorithm for multi-issue negotiation problems. In: JAWS-2009, pp. 286–293 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ito, T., Klein, M., Hattori, H.: An auction-based negotiation protocol for agents with nonlinear utility functions. Center for Coordination Science, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ito, T., Hattori, H., Klein, M.: 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 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jonker, C.M., Robu, V., Treur, J.: An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 15(2), 221–252 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., Bar-Yam, Y.: Negotiating complex contracts. IEEE Intell. Syst. J. Spec. Issue Agents Mark. 18, 32–38 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Laibson, D.: Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q. J. Econ. 127, 267–286 (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lau, R.Y.K.: Towards genetically optimised multi-agent multi-issue negotiations. In: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’05) (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li, M., Vo, Q.B., Kowalczyk, R.: Searching for fair joint gains in agent-based negotiation. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pp. 1049–1056 (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., Welch, N.: Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull. 127, 267–286 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lopez-Carmona, M., Marsa-Maestre, I., Klein, M., Ito, T.: Addressing stability issues in mediated complex contract negotiations for constraint-based, non-monotonic utility spaces. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst., pp. 1–51 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R., de la Hoz, E.: Effective bidding and deal identification for negotiations in highly nonlinear scenarios. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pp. 1057–1064 (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marsa-Maestre, I., Lopez-Carmona, M.A., Velasco, J.R., Ito, T., Klein, M., Fujita, K.: Balancing utility and deal probability for negotiations in highly nonlinear utility spaces. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2009), pp. 214–219 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sagristano, M., Trope, Y., Liberman, N.: Time-dependent gambling: odds now, money later. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 131, 364–376 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Savitsky, K., Medvec, V., Charlton, A., Gilovich, T.: ‘what, me worry’: arousal, misattribution and the effect of temporal distance on confidence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24, 529–536 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soh, L.-K., Li, X.: Adaptive, confidence-based multi-agent negotiation strategy. In: Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS2004) (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strotz, R.H.: Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cooperative Information Agents, vol. 23 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Techno-Business AdministrationNagoya Institute of TechnologyNagoyaJapan

Personalised recommendations