Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A BOA-based adaptive strategy with multi-party perspective for automated multilateral negotiations

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Determining an effective strategy for intelligent agents in multilateral negotiations is a more complicated problem than in bilateral negotiations. In order to achieve an optimal and beneficial agreement the agent needs to consider the behavior and desired utility of more than one opponent, determine a concession tactic based on a smaller agreement space, and use a computationally efficient mechanism for generating optimal offers. However, a mere extension of bilateral negotiation strategies cannot be effective in multilateral negotiations because the nature of most bilateral negotiation strategies is based on interaction with only one opponent and tracking a single behavior during the negotiation process. In this paper, we propose an adaptive approach based on a multi-party perspective to determine multilateral negotiation strategy. The proposed approach applies the BOA framework (Bidding, Opponent model, and Acceptance) and dynamically models the opponents’ preference profiles. In order to estimate the obtainable utility from opponents and help find a good offer, the agent uses an ensemble model made by individual frequency-based opponent models and a different level of attention to each party’s behavior. The proposed approach also implements a bidding strategy which applies the opponents’ desirable utility to adapt the agent’s concession tactic and produce appropriate offers. The results of experimental evaluations on various negotiation scenarios against the state of the art multilateral negotiation strategies show that our proposed strategy can provide superior performance in both individual utility and social welfare and lead to more optimal and fairer agreements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
€32.70 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. It is worth noting that in a multilateral negotiation, an agent may accept the offer, but this does not mean the negotiation ends, because all the agents must accept the offer to reach an agreement. Hence, the offers accepted by an opponent can represent the desired bids for the opponent and be used to learn the profile of his preferences.

  2. We decided to name the proposed agent in honor of our university in which we developed this agent (Iran University of Science and Technology).

  3. Automated Negotiating Agents Competitions (2010-2019)

References

  1. Agrawal MK, Chari K (2009) Learning negotiation support systems in competitive negotiations: a study of negotiation behaviors and system impacts. Int J Intell Inform Technol 5:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. An B, Sim KM, Tang LG, Miao CY, Shen ZQ, Cheng DJ (2008) Negotiation agents’ decision making using Markov Chains. In: Rational, robust, and secure negotiations in multi-agent systems. Springer, pp 3–23

  3. Aydoğan R, Festen D, Hindriks KV, Jonker CM (2017) Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation. In: Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 153–167

  4. Aydoğan R, Yolum P (2012) The effect of preference representation on learning preferences in negotiation. In: New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations. Springer, pp 3–20

  5. Baarslag T (2016) Exploring the strategy space of negotiating agents: a framework for bidding, learning and accepting in automated negotiation. Springer

  6. Baarslag T, Fujita K, Gerding EH, Hindriks K, Ito T, Jennings NR, Jonker C, Kraus S, Lin R, Robu V (2013) Evaluating practical negotiating agents: results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artif Intell 198:73–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baarslag T, Aydoğan R, Hindriks KV, Fujita K, Ito T, Jonker CM (2015) The automated negotiating agents competition, 2010–2015. AI Mag 36:115–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baarslag T, Hendrikx MJ, Hindriks KV, Jonker CM (2016) Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: a comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 30:849–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baarslag T, Hindriks K, Hendrikx M, Dirkzwager A, Jonker C (2014) Decoupling negotiating agents to explore the space of negotiation strategies. In: Novel insights in agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 61–83

  10. Baarslag T, Hindriks K, Jonker C (2014) Effective acceptance conditions in real-time automated negotiation. Decis Support Syst 60:68–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Baarslag T, Hindriks KV, Jonker CM, Kraus S, Lin R (2012) The first automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2010). Trends Agent-Based Complex Autom Negot 383:113–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bahrammirzaee A, Chohra A, Madani K (2013) An adaptive approach for decision making tactics in automated negotiation. Appl Intell 39:583–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Conitzer V, Freeman R, Shah N, Vaughan JW (2019) Group fairness for indivisible good allocation. In: Proc. AAAI

  14. Chen S, Hao J, Zhou S, Weiss G (2017) Negotiating with unknown opponents toward multi-lateral agreement in real-time domains. In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 219–229

  15. Chen S, Weiss G (2015) An approach to complex agent-based negotiations via effectively modeling unknown opponents. Expert Syst Appl 42:2287–2304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.10.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coehoorn RM, Jennings NR (2004) Learning on opponent’s preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on electronic commerce. ACM, pp 59–68

  17. De Jonge D, Sierra C (2016) GANGSTER: an automated negotiator applying genetic algorithms. In: Recent advances in agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 225–234

  18. Faratin P, Sierra C, Jennings NR (1998) Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robot Auton Syst 24:159–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fatima SS, Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (2001) Optimal negotiation strategies for agents with incomplete information. In: International workshop on agent theories, architectures, and languages. Springer, pp 377–392

  20. Fujita K, Aydoğan R, Baarslag T, Hindriks K, Ito T, Jonker C (2017) The sixth automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC 2015). In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 139–151

  21. Fishel R, Bercovitch M (2013) Bram agent. In: Complex automated negotiations: theories, models, and software competitions. Springer, pp 213–216

  22. van Galen Last N (2012) Agent Smith: opponent model estimation in bilateral multi-issue negotiation. Trends Agent-Based Complex Autom Negot 383:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gong Z, Guo W, Herrera-Viedma E, Gong Z, Wei G (2019) Consistency and consensus modeling of linear uncertain preference relations. Europ J Oper Res, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.035

  24. Hayashi M, Ito T (2017) AgentH. In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 251–255

  25. Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2007) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15:863–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hindriks K, Jonker CM, Tykhonov D (2009) The benefits of opponent models in negotiation. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM, international joint conferences on web intelligence and intelligent agent technologies, 2009. WI-IAT’09. IEEE, pp 439–444

  27. Igarashi A, Peters D (2019) Pareto-optimal allocation of indivisible goods with connectivity constraints. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, pp 2045–2052

  28. Jazayeriy H, Azmi-Murad M, Sulaiman N, Izura Udizir N (2011) The learning of an opponent’s approximate preferences in bilateral automated negotiation. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 6:65–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jennings NR, Faratin P, Lomuscio AR, Parsons S, Wooldridge MJ, Sierra C (2001) Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decis Negot 10:199–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kakimoto S, Fujita K (2017) Randomdance: compromising strategy considering interdependencies of issues with randomness. In: Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 185–189

  31. Kawaguchi S, Fujita K, Ito T (2012) AgentK: compromising strategy based on estimated maximum utility for automated negotiating agents. In: New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations. Springer, pp 137–144

  32. Khosravimehr Z, Nassiri-Mofakham F (2017) Pars agent: hybrid time-dependent, random and frequency-based bidding and acceptance strategies in multilateral negotiations. In: Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 175–183

  33. Sim KM, Shi B (2010) Concurrent negotiation and coordination for grid resource coallocation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 40:753–766. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCB.2009.2028870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lai KR, Lin MW, Yu TJ (2010) Learning opponent’s beliefs via fuzzy constraint-directed approach to make effective agent negotiation. Appl Intell 33:232–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lam MWY, Leung H (2017) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds). Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 201–212

  36. Lin R, Kraus S (2010) Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans? Commun ACM 53:78–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lin R, Kraus S, Baarslag T, Tykhonov D, Hindriks K, Jonker CM (2014) Genius: an integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Comput Intell 30:48–70

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Marsa-Maestre I, Klein M, Jonker CM, Aydoğan R (2014) From problems to protocols: towards a negotiation handbook. Decis Support Syst 60:39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.05.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. del Moral MJ, Chiclana F, Tapia JM, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) A comparative study on consensus measures in group decision making. Int J Intell Syst 33:1624–1638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mohri M, Rostamizadeh A, Talwalkar A (2012) Foundations of machine learning. MIT press

  41. Mori A, Ito T (2015) A compromising strategy based on expected utility of evolutionary stable strategy in bilateral closed bargaining problem. In: Proceedings of agent-based complex automated negotiations, pp 58–65

  42. Mori A, Ito T (2017) Atlas3: a negotiating agent based on expecting lower limit of concession function. In: Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 169–173

  43. Ng CW, Leung HT, Leung H (2017) CUHKAgent2015: an adaptive negotiation strategy in multilateral scenario. In: Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 243–250

  44. Niimi M, Ito T (2016) AgentM. In: Recent advances in agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, Cham, pp 235–240

  45. Osborne MJ (2004) An introduction to game theory. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Papaioannou I, Roussaki I, Anagnostou M (2011) Multi-modal opponent behaviour prognosis in e-negotiations. In: International work-conference on artificial neural networks. Springer, pp 113–123

  47. Peperkamp JB, Smit VJ (2017) Pokerface: the pokerface strategy for multiparty negotiation. In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 213–218

  48. Sato M, Ito T (2016) Whaleagent: hardheaded strategy and conceder strategy based on the heuristics. In: Recent advances in agent-based complex automated negotiation, pp 273–278

  49. Suksompong W (2018) Resource allocation and decision making for groups. PhD Thesis, Stanford University

  50. Suksompong W (2019) Fairly allocating contiguous blocks of indivisible items. Discret Appl Math 260:227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2019.01.036

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Dong YC, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Inform Sci 459:20–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Şerban LD, Silaghi GC, Litan CM (2012) AgentFSEGA: time constrained reasoning model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations. In: New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations. Springer, pp 159–165

  53. Sosale B, Satish S, An B (2017) Agent Buyog: a negotiation strategy for tri-party multi issue negotiation. In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 191–199

  54. Thomas CJ (2012) An alternating-offers model of multilateral negotiations. Available at SSRN 2188157

  55. Thompson LL (2012) The mind and heart of the negotiator, 5th edn. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  56. van Krimpen T, Looije D, Hajizadeh S (2013) Hardheaded. In: Complex automated negotiations: theories, models, and software competitions. Springer, pp 223–227

  57. Williams CR, Robu V, Gerding EH, Jennings NR (2012) Iamhaggler: a negotiation agent for complex environments. In: New trends in agent-based complex automated negotiations. Springer, pp 151–158

  58. Yucel O, Hoffman J, Sen S (2017) Jonny black: a mediating approach to multilateral negotiations. In: Fujita K, Bai Q, Ito T, Zhang M, Ren F, Aydoğan R, Hadfi R (eds) Modern approaches to agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 231–238

  59. Zafari F, Nassiri-Mofakham F (2016) Bravecat: iterative deepening distance-based opponent modeling and hybrid bidding in nonlinear ultra large bilateral multi issue negotiation domains. In: Recent advances in agent-based complex automated negotiation. Springer, pp 285–293

  60. Zafari F, Nassiri-Mofakham F (2016) POPPONENT: highly accurate, individually and socially efficient opponent preference model in bilateral multi issue negotiations. Artif Intell 237:59–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2016.04.001

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Zhang B, Dong Y, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) Group decision making with heterogeneous preference structures: an automatic mechanism to support consensus reaching. Group Decis Negot 28:585–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Zheng R, Dai T, Sycara K, Chakraborty N (2016) Automated multilateral negotiation on multiple issues with private information. Inf J Comput 28:612–628

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electronic Commerce, School of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Hengam St., Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Amini, Mohammad Fathian & Mehdi Ghazanfari

Authors
  1. Mohammad Amini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Fathian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mehdi Ghazanfari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Fathian.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amini, M., Fathian, M. & Ghazanfari, M. A BOA-based adaptive strategy with multi-party perspective for automated multilateral negotiations. Appl Intell 50, 2718–2748 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01646-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-020-01646-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation