Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
itself, and proposes new mechanisms that, in contrast to the commonly used
mixing, avoid the dynamic emergence of non-monotonic utility sequences during
the negotiation process, thereby also avoiding the drawbacks described above.
6
Conclusions
We provided an investigation of (non-)monotonic behaviour of multi-tactic strate-
gies created by different mechanisms for mixing pure tactics in single- and multi-
issue bargaining. The traditional mixing based on linear weighted combination
can undesirably expose non-monotonic utilities over time, even in cases of in-
dividual cooperative behaviour and static strategy settings of both agents, if
behaviour-dependent and -independent tactics are used. As alternative, we pro-
posed two mixing mechanisms that solve this problem by provably producing
monotonic concession behaviour for static and dynamic weights: the first using
imitative negotiation threads and the second single concessions for each involved
tactic. A comparative evaluation showed that both mechanisms yield higher util-
ities for the agents in many multi-issue negotiation scenarios as compared to
traditional mixing when both agents use the same mixing mechanism.
References
1. Brzostowski, J., Kowalczyk, R.: Predicting Partner's Behaviour in Agent Negotia-
tion. In: AAMAS 2006, pp. 355-361. ACM, New York (2006)
2. Cardoso, H.L., Oliveira, E.: Using and Evaluating Adaptive Agents for Electronic
Commerce Negotiation. In: Monard, M.C., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) SBIA 2000 and IB-
ERAMIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1952, pp. 96-105. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)
3. Faratin, P.: Automated Service Negotiation Between Autonomous Computational
Agents. PhD Thesis, University of London (2000)
4. Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Negotiation Decision Functions for Au-
tonomous Agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24(3-4), 159-182 (1998)
5. Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Using Similarity Criteria to make Issue
Trade-offs in Automated Negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142, 205-237 (2002)
6. Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Bargaining with Incomplete Infor-
mation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 44(3), 207-232 (2005)
7. Ito, T., Hattori, H., Klein, M.: Multi-Issue Negotiation Protocol for Agents: Ex-
ploring Nonlinear Utility Spaces. In: 20th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intel-
ligence, pp. 1347-1352. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2007)
8. Matos, N., Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R.: Determining Successful Negotiation Strate-
gies: An Evolutionary Approach. In: 3rd Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE
Computer Society, Washington (1998)
9. Raiffa, H.: The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
(1982)
10. Richter, J., Klusch, M., Kowalczyk, R.: On Monotonic Mixed Tactics and Strategies
for Multi-Issue Negotiation. In: AAMAS 2010, pp. 1609-1610 (2010)
11. Ros, R., Sierra, C.: A Negotiation Meta Strategy Combining Trade-off and Con-
cession Moves. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 12, 163-181 (2006)
12. Winoto, P., McCalla, G.I., Vassileva, J.: Non-Monotonic-Offers Bargaining Proto-
col. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 11(1), 45-67 (2005)
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search