IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v17y2008i6d10.1007_s10726-008-9109-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluations of Tactics for Automated Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Ching-Fen Lee

    (Tamkang University)

  • Pao-Long Chang

    (Feng Chia University)

Abstract

Automated negotiation under the infrastructure of e-commerce is becoming an important issue. However, although the communication protocols and frameworks of automated negotiation have been extensively investigated, the corresponding tactics and strategies are still underdeveloped and need to be evaluated further. Based on the negotiation model proposed by Faratin et al., this paper examines the performance of automated negotiation tactics and intends to provide concise suggestions for the users of automated negotiation. First, theoretical analysis is used to evaluate the behavior-dependent tactics. Constructive conclusions are obtained when single-issue negotiations are considered. Next, a new framework for applying single-issue tactics to multi-issue negotiation is proposed. Based on this framework, theoretical analysis is then extended to multi-issue cases. Finally, different from the previous work, exhaustive simulations based on two-issue negotiations are performed to evaluate the effectiveness of behavior-dependent and time-dependent tactics. The experimental results provide several important insights into negotiation tactics.

Suggested Citation

  • Ching-Fen Lee & Pao-Long Chang, 2008. "Evaluations of Tactics for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 515-539, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:17:y:2008:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-008-9109-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-008-9109-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-008-9109-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-008-9109-y?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. Tung Bui & Jerome Yen & Jiuru Hu & Siva Sankaran, 2001. "A Multi-Attribute Negotiation Support System with Market Signaling for Electronic Markets," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 515-537, November.
    2. Arvind Rangaswamy & G. Richard Shell, 1997. "Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an "Electronic Bargaining Table"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(8), pages 1147-1163, August.
    3. Jeryl L. Mumpower, 1991. "The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1304-1324, October.
    4. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Bo Yu & Rustam Vahidov, 2019. "Applying Social Interaction Theory to Negotiation Modeling: Design of E-negotiation System," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 703-718, June.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Kaushal Chari & Manish Agrawal, 2007. "Multi-Issue Automated Negotiations Using Agents," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 588-595, November.
    4. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    5. Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2000. "An Experimental Investigation of Virtual Negotiations with Dynamic Plots," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 415-429, September.
    6. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.
    7. S Eom & E Kim, 2006. "A survey of decision support system applications (1995–2001)," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(11), pages 1264-1278, November.
    8. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    9. Bergantiños, Gustavo & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2022. "Monotonicity in sharing the revenues from broadcasting sports leagues," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(1), pages 338-346.
    10. Yoshihara, Naoki, 2003. "Characterizations of bargaining solutions in production economies with unequal skills," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 256-285, February.
    11. Roma Paolo & Perrone Giovanni, 2010. "Generic Advertising, Brand Advertising and Price Competition: An Analysis of Free-Riding Effects and Coordination Mechanisms," Review of Marketing Science, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-29, October.
    12. Jamie Fairbrother & Konstantinos G. Zografos & Kevin D. Glazebrook, 2020. "A Slot-Scheduling Mechanism at Congested Airports that Incorporates Efficiency, Fairness, and Airline Preferences," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 115-138, January.
    13. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    14. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    15. Han, Han & Julien, Benoît & Petursdottir, Asgerdur & Wang, Liang, 2019. "Asset liquidity and indivisibility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 236-250.
    16. Carrillo-Tudela, Carlos & Graber, Michael & Waelde, Klaus, 2018. "Unemployment and vacancy dynamics with imperfect financial markets," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 128-143.
    17. Ursula F Ott & Pervez N Ghauri, 2019. "Brexit negotiations: From negotiation space to agreement zones," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 50(1), pages 137-149, February.
    18. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    19. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    20. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.

    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:spr:grdene:v:17:y:2008:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-008-9109-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.