IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v254y2016i3p968-976.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approximate representation of the Pareto frontier in multiparty negotiations: Decentralized methods and privacy preservation

Author

Listed:
  • Lou, Youcheng
  • Wang, Shouyang

Abstract

Multiparty negotiations have drawn much research attention in recent years and an important problem is how to find a Pareto optimal solution or the entire Pareto frontier in a decentralized way. Privacy preservation is also important in negotiation analysis. The main aim of this paper is to find an approximate representation of the Pareto frontier in a decentralized manner and meanwhile, all parties’ privacy can be effectively protected. In this paper, we propose a decentralized discrete-time algorithm based on a weight sum method and the well-known subgradient optimization algorithm, where a mediator works as a coordinator to help negotiators. The proposed algorithm is easily executable, and it only requires the mediator to compute a weighted average of the noisy estimates received from negotiators and negotiators to follow a subgradient optimization iteration at this weighted average. The proposed algorithm can generate an approximate Pareto optimal solution for one particular weight vector and an approximate representation of the Pareto frontier by varying appropriately weight vectors. The approximation error between the obtained approximate representation and the Pareto frontier can be controlled by the number of iterations and the step-size. Moreover, it also reveals that the proposed algorithm is privacy preserving as a result of the random disturbance technique and the weighted average scheme used in this algorithm.

Suggested Citation

  • Lou, Youcheng & Wang, Shouyang, 2016. "Approximate representation of the Pareto frontier in multiparty negotiations: Decentralized methods and privacy preservation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 968-976.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:254:y:2016:i:3:p:968-976
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.060
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221716302971
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.060?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James K. Sebenius, 1992. "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 18-38, January.
    2. Serpil Sayin, 2003. "A Procedure to Find Discrete Representations of the Efficient Set with Specified Coverage Errors," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 427-436, June.
    3. Heiskanen, Pirja & Ehtamo, Harri & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Constraint proposal method for computing Pareto solutions in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 44-61, August.
    4. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki & Zionts, Stanley, 1996. "Identifying Pareto-optimal settlements for two-party resource allocation negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 536-549, September.
    5. Michael Masin & Yossi Bukchin, 2008. "Diversity Maximization Approach for Multiobjective Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(2), pages 411-424, April.
    6. Heiskanen, Pirja, 1999. "Decentralized method for computing Pareto solutions in multiparty negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 578-590, September.
    7. Kitti, Mitri & Ehtamo, Harri, 2007. "Analysis of the constraint proposal method for two-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 817-827, September.
    8. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Kuula, Markku & Zionts, Stanley, 1995. "A decision support approach for negotiation with an application to agricultural income policy negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 76-87, February.
    9. Ehtamo, Harri & Kettunen, Eero & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 54-69, April.
    10. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Pirja Heiskanen & Jeffrey Teich & Markku Verkama & Stanley Zionts, 1999. "Generating Pareto Solutions in a Two-Party Setting: Constraint Proposal Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1697-1709, December.
    11. Kathrin Klamroth & Kaisa Miettinen, 2008. "Integrating Approximation and Interactive Decision Making in Multicriteria Optimization," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 222-234, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 2001. "Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 475-491, November.
    2. Kitti, Mitri & Ehtamo, Harri, 2007. "Analysis of the constraint proposal method for two-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 817-827, September.
    3. Nicolas Quérou & Patrick Rio & Mabel Tidball, 2007. "Multi-Party Negotiation When Agents Have Subjective Estimates of Bargaining Powers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 417-436, September.
    4. Heiskanen, Pirja & Ehtamo, Harri & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Constraint proposal method for computing Pareto solutions in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 44-61, August.
    5. Pirja Heiskanen, 2001. "Generating Pareto‐optimal boundary points in multiparty negotiations using constraint proposal method," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(3), pages 210-225, April.
    6. Ehtamo, Harri & Kettunen, Eero & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 54-69, April.
    7. Heiskanen, Pirja, 1999. "Decentralized method for computing Pareto solutions in multiparty negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 578-590, September.
    8. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    9. Louta, Malamati & Roussaki, Ioanna & Pechlivanos, Lambros, 2008. "An intelligent agent negotiation strategy in the electronic marketplace environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1327-1345, June.
    10. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2009. "Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations - A volume-based measurement method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(2), pages 452-463, April.
    11. Gregory E. Kersten, 2001. "Modeling Distributive and Integrative Negotiations. Review and Revised Characterization," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 493-514, November.
    12. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    13. Ivan Marsa-Maestre & Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona & Juan A. Carral & Guillermo Ibanez, 2013. "A Recursive Protocol for Negotiating Contracts Under Non-monotonic Preference Structures," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-43, January.
    14. Bendoly, Elliot & Bachrach, Daniel G., 2003. "A process-based model for priority convergence in multi-period group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 534-545, August.
    15. Stacey Faulkenberg & Margaret Wiecek, 2012. "Generating equidistant representations in biobjective programming," Computational Optimization and Applications, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 1173-1210, April.
    16. M. Kitti & H. Ehtamo, 2009. "Adjustment of an Affine Contract with a Fixed-Point Iteration," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 477-497, March.
    17. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Pirja Heiskanen & Jeffrey Teich & Markku Verkama & Stanley Zionts, 1999. "Generating Pareto Solutions in a Two-Party Setting: Constraint Proposal Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 45(12), pages 1697-1709, December.
    18. Gregory Kersten & Sunil Noronha, 1999. "Negotiation via the World Wide Web: A Cross-cultural Study of Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(3), pages 251-279, May.
    19. Daniel Jornada & V. Jorge Leon, 2020. "Filtering Algorithms for Biobjective Mixed Binary Linear Optimization Problems with a Multiple-Choice Constraint," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 57-73, January.
    20. J. Teich & H. Wallenius & J. Wallenius, 1998. "Multiple Issue Action and Market Algorithms for the World Wide Web," Working Papers ir98109, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:254:y:2016:i:3:p:968-976. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.