IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i1d10.1007_s10726-011-9254-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Recursive Protocol for Negotiating Contracts Under Non-monotonic Preference Structures

Author

Listed:
  • Ivan Marsa-Maestre

    (Universidad de Alcala)

  • Miguel A. Lopez-Carmona

    (Universidad de Alcala)

  • Juan A. Carral

    (Universidad de Alcala)

  • Guillermo Ibanez

    (Universidad de Alcala)

Abstract

Negotiating contracts with multiple interdependent issues may yield non-monotonic preference spaces for the participating agents. These negotiations are specially challenging because of the complexity and dimension of the search space. Automated negotiation mechanisms designed and proven useful for monotonic utility spaces may fail in these negotiation scenarios. This paper presents a novel solution to the problem of automated multi-issue negotiations in the context of complex utility spaces. We seek to address the challenge of intractably large contract spaces and utility functions with multiple local optima in automated negotiation scenarios. A protocol for automated bilateral multi-attribute negotiation processes is proposed, in which the individual agents’ preferences can be non-monotonic and discontinuous. The protocol is based on a recursive non-mediated bargaining mechanism, which involves two agents who simultaneously exchange proposals defined as regions within the negotiation space. An agreement on a region implies a new bargaining which is restricted to that region. This recursive process is governed by a set of rules which modulate the joint exploration of the negotiation space until an agreement is found or a deadline expires. The protocol is experimentally evaluated under monotonic and non-monotonic preference scenarios, confirming that the protocol is able to produce outcomes close to the Pareto frontier in acceptable negotiation time, outperforming previous approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9254-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-011-9254-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-011-9254-6
    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/s10726-011-9254-6?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. Ken Binmore & Nir Vulkan, 1999. "Applying game theory to automated negotiation," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Ronald R. Yager, 2007. "Multi-Agent Negotiation Using Linguistically Expressed Mediation Rules," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Guoming Lai & Katia Sycara, 2009. "A Generic Framework for Automated Multi-attribute Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 169-187, March.
    6. Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
    7. Mark Klein & Peyman Faratin & Hiroki Sayama & Yaneer Bar-Yam, 2003. "Negotiating Complex Contracts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 111-125, March.
    8. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    9. Ken Binmore & Nir Vulkan, "undated". "Applying Game Theory to Automated Negotiation," ELSE working papers 004, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    2. Ronghuo Zheng & Tinglong Dai & Katia Sycara & Nilanjan Chakraborty, 2016. "Automated Multilateral Negotiation on Multiple Issues with Private Information," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 612-628, November.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Homberger, Jörg & Fink, Andreas, 2017. "Generic negotiation mechanisms with side payments – Design, analysis and application for decentralized resource-constrained multi-project scheduling problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(3), pages 1001-1012.
    6. Guoming Lai & Katia Sycara, 2009. "A Generic Framework for Automated Multi-attribute Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 169-187, March.
    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. Usha Kiruthika & Thamarai Selvi Somasundaram & S. Kanaga Suba Raja, 2020. "Lifecycle Model of a Negotiation Agent: A Survey of Automated Negotiation Techniques," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1239-1262, December.
    9. van Bragt, David & van Kemenade, Cees & la Poutre, Han, 2001. "The Influence of Evolutionary Selection Schemes on the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 17(2-3), pages 253-263, June.
    10. P. Ding & M. D. Gerst & G. Bang & M. E. Borsuk, 2015. "An Application of Automated Mediation to International Climate Treaty Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 885-903, September.
    11. Huiye Ma & Nicole Ronald & Theo Arentze & Harry Timmermans, 2013. "Negotiating on location, timing, duration, and participant in agent-mediated joint activity-travel scheduling," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 427-451, October.
    12. D.D.B. Bragt, van & J. A. La Poutr & E. H. Gerding, 2000. "Equilibrium Selection In Evolutionary Bargaining Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 323, Society for Computational Economics.
    13. Enrico Gerding & David van Bragt & Han La Poutré, 2003. "Multi-Issue Negotiation Processes by Evolutionary Simulation, Validation and Social Extensions," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 22(1), pages 39-63, August.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Lang, Fabian & Fink, Andreas & Brandt, Tobias, 2016. "Design of automated negotiation mechanisms for decentralized heterogeneous machine scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 192-203.
    17. Paula Sarabando & Luís C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2013. "Mediation with Incomplete Information: Approaches to Suggest Potential Agreements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 561-597, May.
    18. V. Kumar & Ashutosh Dixit & Rajshekar (Raj) G. Javalgi & Mayukh Dass, 2016. "Research framework, strategies, and applications of intelligent agent technologies (IATs) in marketing," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 24-45, January.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:22:y:2013:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9254-6. 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.