Skip to main content
Log in

An empirical study of interest-based negotiation

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

Abstract

While argumentation-based negotiation has been accepted as a promising alternative to game-theoretic or heuristic-based negotiation, no evidence has been provided to confirm this theoretical advantage. We propose a model of bilateral negotiation extending a simple monotonic concession protocol by allowing the agents to exchange information about their underlying interests and possible alternatives to achieve them during the negotiation. We present an empirical study that demonstrates (through simulation) the advantages of this interest-based negotiation approach over the more classic monotonic concession approach to negotiation.

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

Access this article

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. Barbuceanu, M., & Lo, W.-K. (2000). A multi-attribute utility theoretic negotiation architecture for electronic commerce. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on autonomous agents (pp. 239–246).

  2. Bierman H. S., Fernandez L. (2005) Game theory with economic applications. Addison-Wesley, Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  3. Buttner, R. (2006). A classification structure for automated negotiations. In Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on multi-agent systems in e-business (MASeB’06) (pp. 523–530). IEEE Computer Society.

  4. Buttner R. (2006) The state of the art in automated negotiation models of the behavior and information perspective. International Transactions on Systems Science and Applications (ITSSA) 1(4): 351–356

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen S. P. (2002) Negotiating skills for managers. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  6. Conitzer, V., & Sandholm, T. W. (2004). Computational criticisms of the revelation principle. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on electronic commerce (EC-04) (pp. 262–263).

  7. Dastani, M., de Boer, F., Dignum, F., & Meyer, J.-J. (2003). Programming agent deliberation: An approach illustrated using the 3APL language. In Proceedings of the second conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS’03) (pp. 97–104).

  8. Dastani, M., van Riemsdijk, M. B., & Meyer, J.-J. (2005). Programming multi-agent systems in 3APL. In Multi-agent programming: Languages, platforms and applications (pp. 10–45). Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag.

  9. Endriss, U. (2006). Monotonic concession protocols for multilateral negotiation. In Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’06) (pp. 392–399). New York: ACM Press.

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher R., Ury W. (1983) Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fudenberg, D., Levine, D., & Tirole, J. (1985). Infinite horizon models of bargaining with one sided incomplete information. In Game theoretic models of bargaining. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  13. Gal, Y., D’souza, S., Pasquier, P., Rahwan, I., & Abdallah, S. (2009). The effects of goal revelation on computer-mediated negotiation. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society (CogSci) (pp. 2614–2619). The Netherlands: Amsterdam.

  14. Gal, Y., & Pfeffer, A. (2007). Modeling reciprocity in human bilateral negotiation. In National conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI). British Columbia: Vancouver.

  15. Governatori, G., Dumas, M., Hofstede, A., & Oaks, P. (2001). A formal approach to protocols and strategies for (legal) negotiation. In Procedings of the 8th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 168–177). New York: ACM Press.

  16. Grosz, B., Kraus, S., Talman, S., & Stossel, B. (2004). The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: Initial investigation with a new game. In Proceedings of the third international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS’04) (pp. 782–789).

  17. Harsanyi J. C., Selten R. (1972) A generalized Nash solution for two-person bargaining games with incomplete information. Management Science 18(5): 80–106

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Heiskanen P., Ehtamo H., Hamalaien R. P. (2001) Constraint proposal method for computing pareto solutions in multi-party negotiations. European Journal of Operational Research 133(1): 44–61

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Hiltrop J. M., Udall S. (1995) The essence of negotiation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jonker C. M., Robu V., Treur J. (2007) An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 15(2): 221–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Karunatillake N. C., Jennings N. R., Rahwan I., McBurney P. (2009) Dialogue games that agents play within a society. Artificial Intelligence 173(9-10): 935–981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karunatillake, N. C., Jennings, N. R., Rahwan, I., & Ramchurn, S. D. (2006). Managing social influences through argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’06) (pp. 426–428). New York: ACM Press.

  24. Kowalczyk R., Bui V. (2001) On constraint-based reasoning in e-negotiation agents. In: Dignum F., Cortés U. (eds) Agent-mediated electronic commerce III. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2003. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 31–46

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Kraus S. (2001) Strategic negotiation in multi-agent environments. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kraus S., Sycara K. (1998) Reaching agreement through argumentation: A logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104(1–2): 1–69

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Larson K., Sandholm T. W. (2001) Bargaining with limited computation: Deliberation equilibrium. Artificial Intelligence 132: 183–217

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Lesser V., Decker K., Wagner T., Carver N., Garvey B., Horling B. et al (2004) Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems 9(1): 87–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lin, R., Kraus, S., Wilkenfeld, J., & Barry, J. (2006). An automated agent for bilateral negotiation with bounded rational agents with incomplete information. In Proceeding of the 17th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 270–274).

  30. Lin R., Kraus S., Wilkenfeld J., Barry J. (2008) Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence journal 172(6–7): 823–851

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Linhart P. B., Radner R., Satterthwaite M. A. (1991) Bargaining with incomplete information. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  32. Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N., Leung H. F., Ho-man Lee J. (2003) A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence 148: 53–102

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Matos, N. & Sierra, C. (1998). Evolutionary computing and negotiating agents. In Agent mediated electronic commerce. Lecture Notes on Artificial Intelligence, (Vol. 1571, pp. 126–150). Heidleberg: Springer-Verlag.

  34. McKersie R. B., Sharpe T., Kochan T., Eaton A., Strauss G., Morgenstem M. (2008) Bargaining theory meets interest-based negotiations: A case study. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 47(1): 66–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nash J. F. (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18: 155–192

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Osborne M. J., Rubinstein A. (1994) A course in game theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Pasquier, P., Dignum, F., Rahwan, I., & Sonenberg, L. (2006). Interest-based negotiation as an extension of monotonic bargaining in 3APL. In Proceedings of the ninth Pacific rim international workshop on multi-agents (PRIMA 2006). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI) (Vol. 4088, pp. 569–580). Guilin, China: Springer-Verlag.

  39. Pasquier, P., Hollands, R., Dignum, F., Rahwan, I., & Sonenberg, L. (2007). An empirical study of interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on electronic commerce (ICEC) (pp. 339–348). New York: ACM Press.

  40. Pruit D. G. (1981) Negotiation behavior. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rahwan, I. (2004). Interest-based Negotiation in Multi-Agent Systems. PhD thesis, Department of Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

  42. Rahwan I., Pasquier P., Sonenberg L., Dignum F. (2009) Formal analysis of interest-based negotiation. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 55(3–4): 253–276

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  43. Rahwan, I., Pasquier, P., Sonenberg, S., & Dignum, F. (2007). On the benefits of exploiting underlying goals in argumentation-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the 22nd conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI). Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Press.

  44. Rahwan I., Ramchurn S., Jennings N., McBurney P., Parsons S., Sonenberg L. (2003) Argumentation based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4): 343–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., & Dignum, F. (2003) Towards interest-based negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’03) (pp. 773–780). New York: ACM Press.

  46. Raiffa H. (1982) The art and science of negotiation.: Harvard University Press,

  47. Rosenschein J. S., Zlotkin G. (1994) Rules of encounter: Designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rubinstein A. (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1): 97–109

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. Rubinstein A. (1985) A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica 53: 1151–1172

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. Rubinstein A. (1997) Modeling bounded rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  51. Russell S., Norvig P. (2003) Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Series in Artificial Intelligence, 2nd (ed.). Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sandholm T. (1999) Distributed rational decision making. In: Weiss G. (eds) Multiagent systems: A modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 201–258

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sandholm, T., & Vulkan, N. (1999). Bargaining with deadlines. In Hendler, J. & Subramanian, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-1999), Menlo Park CA, USA. (pp. 44–51).

  54. Wolfstetter E. (1996) Auctions: An introduction. Journal of Economic Surveys 10: 367–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wooldridge M. (2001) An Introduction to multiagent systems. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  56. Young P. (1991) Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zeng, D., & Sycara, K. (1997). Benefits of learning in negotiation. In Proceedings of the 14th national conference on artificial intelligence and 9th innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference (AAAI-97/IAAI-97), Menlo Park, USA (pp. 36–42, 27–31). Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Press.

  58. Zlotkin, G. & Rosenschein, J. S. (1989). Negotiation and task sharing among autonomous agents in cooperative domains. In Proceedings of the eleventh international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-89) (pp. 912–917). Detroit: MI.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Pasquier.

Additional information

This is a substantially revised and expanded version of a paper that appeared in the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Electronic Commerce (ICEC) [39].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pasquier, P., Hollands, R., Rahwan, I. et al. An empirical study of interest-based negotiation. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 22, 249–288 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9125-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9125-6

Keywords

Navigation