Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Logic-based automated multi-issue bilateral negotiation in peer-to-peer e-marketplaces

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We present a novel logic-based framework to automate multi-issue bilateral negotiation in e-commerce settings. The approach exploits logic as communication language among agents, and optimization techniques in order to find Pareto-efficient agreements. We introduce \({\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{N}})\), a propositional logic extended with concrete domains, which allows one to model relations among issues (both numerical and non-numerical ones) via logical entailment, differently from well-known approaches that describe issues as uncorrelated. Through \({\mathcal{P}}({\mathcal{N}})\) it is possible to represent buyer’s request, seller’s supply and their respective preferences as formulas endowed with a formal semantics, e.g., “if I spend more than 30000 € for a sedan then I want more than a two-years warranty and a GPS system included”. We mix logic and utility theory in order to express preferences in a qualitative and quantitative way. We illustrate the theoretical framework, the logical language, the one-shot negotiation protocol we adopt, and show we are able to compute Pareto-efficient outcomes, using a mediator to solve an optimization problem. We prove the computational adequacy of our method by studying the complexity of the problem of finding Pareto-efficient solutions in our setting.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ausiello, G., Crescenzi, P., Kann, V., Gambosi, G., & Spaccamela, A. M. (2003). Complexity and approximation: Combinatorial optimization problems and their approximability properties. Springer.

  2. Baader, F., & Hanschke, P. (1991). A schema for integrating concrete domains into concept languages. In Proceedings of IJCAI-91, pp. 452–457.

  3. Bentahar, J., Moulin, B., Ch. Meyer, J.-J., & Chaib-draa, B. (2005). A modal semantics for an argumentation-based pragmatics for agent communication. In P. Moraitis, I. Rahwan, & C. Reed (Eds.), Argumentation in multi-agent systems, LNAI, (Vol. 3366, pp. 44–63). Springer.

  4. Bistarelli S., Montanari U., Rossi F. (1997). Semiring-based constraint satisfaction and optimization. JACM: Journal of the ACM 44(2): 201–236

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Boutilier C., Brafman R.I., Domshlak C., Hoos H.H., Poole D. (2004). Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Articial Intelligence Research 21, 135–191

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouveret, S., Lemaitre, M., Fargier, H., & Lang, J. (2005). Allocation of indivisible goods: a general model and some complexity results. In Proceedings of AAMAS ’05, pp. 1309–1310.

  7. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., & Lang, J. (2006). Expressive power of weighted propositional formulas for cardinal preference modeling. In Proceedings of KR 2006, pp. 145–152.

  8. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., & Maudet, N. (2005). Negotiating over small bundles of resources. In Proceedings of AAMAS ’05, pp. 296–302.

  9. Domshlak C., Prestwich S., Rossi F., Venable K.B., Walsh T. (2006). Hard and soft constraints for reasoning about qualitative conditional preferences. Journal of Heuristics (Special Issue: Preferences and Soft Constraints) 12(4–5): 263–285

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Faratin P., Sierra C., Jennings N.R. (2002). Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142(2):205–237

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Toni, F., Sadri, F., & Torroni, P. (2002). Dialogues for negotiation: agent varieties and dialogue sequences. In J.-J. Meyer, & M. Tambe (Eds.), Intelligent agent VIII, LNAI 2333, (pp. 405–421). Springer-Verlag.

  12. Fatima, S., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2003). Optimal agendas for multi-issue negotiation. In Proceedings of AAMAS’03, pp. 129–136.

  13. Freuder E.C., Wallace R.J. (1992). Partial constraint satisfaction. Artificial Intelligence 58, 21–70

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Fudenberg, D., & Tirole, J. (1983). Game theory. MIT Press.

  15. Gatti, N., & Amigoni, F. (2005). A decentralized bargaining protocol on dependent continuous multi-issue for approximate pareto optimal outcomes. In Proceedings of AAMAS’05, pp. 1213–1214.

  16. Gerding, E. H., van Bragt, D. D. B., & La Poutre, J. A. (2000). Scientific approaches and techniques for negotiation: a game theoretic and artificial intelligence perspective. Technical report, SEN-R0005, CWI.

  17. Hillier, F., & Lieberman, G. (2005). Introduction to operations research. McGraw-Hill.

  18. Jennings N.R., Faratin P., Lomuscio A.R., Parsons S., Wooldridge M.J., Sierra C. (2001). Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2): 199–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Klein, M., Faratin, P., Sayama, H., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2002). Negotiating complex contracts. In Proceedings of AAMAS’02, pp. 753–757.

  20. Kraus, S. (2001). Strategic negotiation in multiagent environments. The MIT Press.

  21. Li, C., Giampapa, J., & Sycara, K. (2003). A review of research literature on bilateral negotiations. Technical report, Carnegie Mellon University.

  22. Lomuscio A.R., Wooldridge M., Jennings N.R. (2003). A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce. Int Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 12(1): 31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Loveland, D. W. (1978). Automated theorem proving: A logical basis. North-Holland.

  24. MacKie-Mason, J. K., & Wellman, M. P. (2006). Automated markets and trading agents. In Judd, K.L., Tesfatsion, L., Intriligator, M.D., & Arrow K.J. (Eds.), Handbook of computational economics. North-Holland.

  25. Muthoo A. (1995). On the strategic role of outside options in bilateral bargaining. Operations Research 43(2): 292–297

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Myerson R.B., Satterthwaite M.A. (1983). Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory 29(2): 265–281

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Nash J.F. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18(2): 155–162

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Papadimitriou, C. H., & Steiglitz, K. (1982). Combinatorial optimization: Algorithms and complexity. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

  29. Parsons S., Sierra C., Jennings N. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3): 261–292

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Pomerol, J. C., & Barba-Romero, S. (2000). Multicriterion decision making in management. Kluwer Series in Operation Research. Kluwer Academic.

  31. Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., & Donini, F. M. (2006). A logic-based framework to compute pareto agreements in one-shot bilateral negotiation. In Proceedings of ECAI’06, pp. 230–234.

  32. Ragone A., Di Noia T., Di Sciascio E., Donini F.M. (2006). Propositional- logic approach to one-shot multi issue bilateral negotiation. ACM SIGecom Exchanges 5(5): 11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rahwan I., Ramchurn S.D., Jennings N.R., Mcburney P., Parsons S. (2003). Argumentation-based negotiation. The Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4): 343–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation analysis – The science and art of collaborative decision making. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

  35. Rosenschein, J. S., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of encounter. MIT Press.

  36. Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2003). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Pearson Education-Prentice Hall.

  37. Wellman, M. P. (2004). Online marketplaces. In Singh, M. P. (Ed.), Practical handbook of internet computing. CRC Press.

  38. Wilson M., Borning A. (1993). Hierarchical constraint logic programming. The Journal of Logic Programming 16(3 & 4): 277–317

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Wooldridge, M., & Parsons, S. (2000). Languages for negotiation. In Proceedings of ECAI ’04, pp. 393–400.

  40. Wurman P.R., Wellman M.P., Walsh W.E. (2001). A parametrization of the auction design space. Games and Economic Behavior 35(1–2): 304–338

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  41. Yokoo M., Hirayama K. (2000). Algorithms for distributed constraint satisfaction: A review. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(2): 185–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang, D., & Zhang, Y. (2006). A computational model of logic-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the AAAI 06, pp. 728–733.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SisInfLab, Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy

    Azzurra Ragone, Tommaso Di Noia & Eugenio Di Sciascio

  2. Università della Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy

    Francesco M. Donini

Authors
  1. Azzurra Ragone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tommaso Di Noia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eugenio Di Sciascio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesco M. Donini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tommaso Di Noia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E. et al. Logic-based automated multi-issue bilateral negotiation in peer-to-peer e-marketplaces. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 16, 249–270 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9033-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9033-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation