IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2002s-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Rule-driven Approach for Defining the Behavior of Negotiating Software Agents

Author

Listed:
  • Hakim Alj
  • Morad Benyoucef
  • Rudolf K Keller
  • Kim Levy

Abstract

One problem with existing agent-mediated negotiation systems is that they rely on ad hoc, static, non-adaptive, and hardcoded schemes to represent the behaviour of agents. This limitation is probably due to the complexity of the negotiation task itself. Indeed, while negotiating, software (human) agents face tough decisions. These decisions are based not only on the information made available by the negotiation server, but on the behaviour of the other participants in the negotiation process as well. The information and the behaviour in question are constantly changing and highly uncertain. In the first part of the paper, we propose a rule-driven approach to represent, manage and explore negotiation strategies and coordination information. For that, we divide the behaviour of negotiating agents into protocols, strategies and coordination. Among the many advantages of the proposed solution, we can cite the high level of abstraction, the closeness to human understanding, the versatility, and the possibility to modify the agents' behaviour during the negotiation process. To validate our solution, we ran many agent tournaments, and used the rule-driven approach to implement bidding strategies that are common in the English and Dutch auctions. We also implemented simple coordination schemes across several auctions. The ongoing validation work is detailed and discussed in the second part of the paper. Un des inconvénients qu'on retrouve fréquemment dans les systèmes de négociation par agents est qu'ils reposent sur des schémas ad-hoc, non adaptatifs et figés dans le code pour représenter le comportement des agents. Cette limitation est probablement due à la complexité de l'activité de négociation elle-même. En effet, au cours de la négociation, les agents logiciels (humains) ont des décisions difficiles à prendre. Ces décisions ne sont pas seulement basées sur l'information disponible sur le serveur de négociation, mais aussi sur le comportement des autres participants durant le processus de négociation. L'information et le comportement en question changent constamment et sont très incertains. Dans la première partie de l'article, nous proposons une approche à base de règles pour représenter, gérer et explorer les stratégies de négociation ainsi que l'information de coordination. Parmi les nombreux avantages de la solution proposée, on peut citer le haut niveau d'abstraction, la proximité avec la compréhension humaine, la souplesse d'utilisation et la possibilité de modifier le comportement des agents durant le processus de négociation. Pour valider notre solution, nous avons effectué plusieurs tournois entre agents et utilisé l'approche à base de règles pour implémenter des stratégies simples applicables à l'enchère anglaise et à l'enchère hollandaise. Nous avons aussi implémenté des schémas simples de coordination impliquant plusieurs enchères. Le travail de validation, en cours, est détaillé et discuté dans la seconde partie de l'article.

Suggested Citation

  • Hakim Alj & Morad Benyoucef & Rudolf K Keller & Kim Levy, 2002. "A Rule-driven Approach for Defining the Behavior of Negotiating Software Agents," CIRANO Working Papers 2002s-23, CIRANO.
  • Handle: RePEc:cir:cirwor:2002s-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cirano.qc.ca/files/publications/2002s-23.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Loretta J. Mester, 1988. "Going, going, gone: setting prices with auctions," Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, issue Mar, pages 3-13.
    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. Houssein Ben-Ameur & Brahim Chaib-draa & Robert Gérin-Lajoie & Peter Kropf & Stéphane Vaucher, 2002. "Towards an Agent-Based Approach for Multimarket Package e-Procurement," CIRANO Working Papers 2002s-73, CIRANO.
    2. Renna, Paolo & Argoneto, Pierluigi, 2010. "Production planning and automated negotiation for SMEs: An agent based e-procurement application," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(1), pages 73-84, September.

    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. Melvin F. Shakun, 2005. "Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 383-392, September.
    2. Sigifredo Laengle & Nikunja Mohan Modak & Jose M. Merigo & Gustavo Zurita, 2018. "Twenty-Five Years of Group Decision and Negotiation: A Bibliometric Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 505-542, August.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. Jorge E. Hernández & Josefa Mula & Raúl Poler & Andrew C. Lyons, 2014. "Collaborative Planning in Multi-tier Supply Chains Supported by a Negotiation-Based Mechanism and Multi-agent System," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 235-269, March.
    7. Jain, Vipul & Deshmukh, S.G., 2009. "Dynamic supply chain modeling using a new fuzzy hybrid negotiation mechanism," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 319-328, November.
    8. Beaudoin, D. & Frayret, J.-M. & LeBel, L., 2010. "Negotiation-based distributed wood procurement planning within a multi-firm environment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 79-93, February.
    9. John Zeleznikow, 2021. "Using Artificial Intelligence to provide Intelligent Dispute Resolution Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 789-812, August.
    10. Ronald, Nicole & Arentze, Theo & Timmermans, Harry, 2012. "Modeling social interactions between individuals for joint activity scheduling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 276-290.
    11. Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Building an Automated win-win Negotiation Process Model," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 33-46.
    12. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    13. Arentze, Theo A., 2015. "Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-84.
    14. Tiago Pinto & Zita Vale & Isabel Praça & E. J. Solteiro Pires & Fernando Lopes, 2015. "Decision Support for Energy Contracts Negotiation with Game Theory and Adaptive Learning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-26, September.
    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. 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.
    18. Tsegay Tesfay Mezgebe & Hind Bril El Haouzi & Guillaume Demesure & Remi Pannequin & Andre Thomas, 2020. "Multi-agent systems negotiation to deal with dynamic scheduling in disturbed industrial context," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1367-1382, August.
    19. Maxime Morge & Paolo Mancarella, 2014. "Arguing over Goals for Negotiation: Adopting an Assumption-Based Argumentation Decision Support System," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 979-1012, 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:cir:cirwor:2002s-23. 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: Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ciranca.html .

    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.