IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v48y2001i3p210-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generating Pareto‐optimal boundary points in multiparty negotiations using constraint proposal method

Author

Listed:
  • Pirja Heiskanen

Abstract

In this paper a constraint proposal method is developed for computing Pareto‐optimal solutions in multiparty negotiations over continuous issues. Constraint proposal methods have been previously studied in a case where the decision set is unconstrained. Here we extend the method to situations with a constrained decision set. In the method the computation of the Pareto‐optimal solutions is decentralized so that the DMs do not have to know each others' value functions. During the procedure they have to indicate their optimal solutions on different sets of linear constraints. When the optimal solutions coincide, the common optimum is a candidate for a Pareto‐optimal point. The constraint proposal method can be used to generate either one Pareto‐optimal solution dominating the status quo solution or several Pareto‐optimal solutions. In latter case a distributive negotiation among the efficient points can be carried out afterwards. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 48: 210–225, 2001

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:48:y:2001:i:3:p:210-225
    DOI: 10.1002/nav.3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nav.3?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Anders Clausen & Aisha Umair & Yves Demazeau & Bo Nørregaard Jørgensen, 2020. "Impact of Social Welfare Metrics on Energy Allocation in Multi-Objective Optimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    13. Sushil Gupta & Hossein Rikhtehgar Berenji & Manish Shukla & Nagesh N. Murthy, 2023. "Opportunities in farming research from an operations management perspective," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1577-1596, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Verkama, Markku & Heiskanen, Pirja, 1997. "Comment on a decision support approach for negotiation: Software vs. methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 202-204, January.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. H. J. Corsair & Jennifer Bassman Ruch & Pearl Q. Zheng & Benjamin F. Hobbs & Joseph F. Koonce, 2009. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis of Stream Restoration: Potential and Examples," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 387-417, July.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:navres:v:48:y:2001:i:3:p:210-225. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    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.