IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v29y2020i6d10.1007_s10726-020-09704-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lifecycle Model of a Negotiation Agent: A Survey of Automated Negotiation Techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Usha Kiruthika

    (SRM Institute of Science and Technology)

  • Thamarai Selvi Somasundaram

    (Madras Institute of Technology)

  • S. Kanaga Suba Raja

    (Easwari Engineering College)

Abstract

Negotiation is a complex process. The decision making involved in several stages of negotiation makes its automation complex. In this paper we present a lifecycle model of a negotiation agent in which we identify the individual components that comprise automated negotiation and the interactions between those components. We present a survey of methods used in the automated negotiation literature fitting them to the components of our lifecycle model. While discussing the opponent modeling component, we present the taxonomy of opponent models. The lifecycle model is generic enough to accommodate most of the frameworks in the literature. To this end we fit the methods used in some of the automated negotiation frameworks in the literature to the lifecycle.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:29:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09704-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09704-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-020-09704-z
    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/s10726-020-09704-z?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. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Ken Binmore & Nir Vulkan, 1999. "Applying game theory to automated negotiation," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 1-9, October.
    4. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    5. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    6. Alessio R. Lomuscio & Michael Wooldridge & Nicholas R. Jennings, 2003. "A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 31-56, January.
    7. Keeney,Ralph L. & Raiffa,Howard, 1993. "Decisions with Multiple Objectives," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521438834, October.
    8. Ken Binmore & Nir Vulkan, "undated". "Applying Game Theory to Automated Negotiation," ELSE working papers 004, ESRC Centre on Economics Learning and Social Evolution.
    9. 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.
    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. Ghavami, Seyed Morsal & Taleai, Mohammad & Arentze, Theo, 2022. "An intelligent web-based spatial group decision support system to investigate the role of the opponents’ modeling in urban land use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Henner Gimpel & Vanessa Graf-Seyfried & Robert Laubacher & Oliver Meindl, 2023. "Towards Artificial Intelligence Augmenting Facilitation: AI Affordances in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 75-124, February.

    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. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2018. "Decentralized Pure Exchange Processes on Networks," Papers 1803.08836, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2022.
    4. 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.
    5. Vincent Martinet & Pedro Gajardo & Michel De Lara & Héctor Ramírez Cabrera, 2011. "Bargaining with intertemporal maximin payoffs," EconomiX Working Papers 2011-7, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    6. Bendoly, Elliot & van Wezel, Wout & Bachrach, Daniel G. (ed.), 2015. "The Handbook of Behavioral Operations Management: Social and Psychological Dynamics in Production and Service Settings," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199357222.
    7. Guillaume Rocheteau & Tai-Wei Hu & Lucie Lebeau & Younghwan In, 2021. "Gradual Bargaining in Decentralized Asset Markets," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 42, pages 72-109, October.
    8. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    12. 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.
    13. Zapechelnyuk, Andriy, 2013. "Eliciting information from a committee," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(5), pages 2049-2067.
    14. Dominik Karos, 2015. "Stable partitions for games with non-transferable utilities and externalities," Economics Series Working Papers 741, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    15. 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.
    16. Guillaume Rocheteau & Lucie Lebeau & Tai-Wei Hu & Younghwan In, 2018. "Gradual Bargaining in Decentralized Asset Markets," Working Papers 181904, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Navarro, Noemí & Veszteg, Róbert F., 2020. "On the empirical validity of axioms in unstructured bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 117-145.
    19. Rebelo, S., 1997. "On the Determinant of Economic Growth," RCER Working Papers 443, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    20. Philip Grech & Oriol Tejada, 2018. "Divide the dollar and conquer more: sequential bargaining and risk aversion," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1261-1286, November.

    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:29:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09704-z. 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.