IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cir/cirwor/2002s-23.html

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. Jinsoo Park & Hamirahanim Abdul Rahman & Jihae Suh & Hazami Hussin, 2019. "A Study of Integrative Bargaining Model with Argumentation-Based Negotiation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. 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.
    3. David C. Parkes & Jayant Kalagnanam, 2005. "Models for Iterative Multiattribute Procurement Auctions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 435-451, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Juan M. Alberola & Vicent Botti & Jose M. Such, 2014. "Advances in infrastructures and tools for multiagent systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 163-167, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Nassiri-Mofakham, Faria & Huhns, Michael N., 2023. "Role of culture in water resources management via sustainable social automated negotiation," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Eymann, Torsten & Streitberger, Werner & Reinicke, Michael & Freitag, Felix & Chacin, Pablo & Chao, Isaac & Schnizler, Björn & Veit, Daniel, 2007. "Preliminary specification and design documentation for software components to achieve catallaxy in computational systems," Bayreuth Reports on Information Systems Management 2, University of Bayreuth, Chair of Information Systems Management.
    10. Shazib E. Shaikh & Nikolay Mehandjiev, 2007. "E-Business Process Negotiation : Formal Requirements for Strategy Support," Microeconomics Working Papers 22278, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    11. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4472 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Khalid Mansour & Ryszard Kowalczyk, 2015. "An Approach to One-to-Many Concurrent Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 45-66, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Przybyła-Kasperek, Małgorzata & Wakulicz-Deja, Alicja, 2016. "The strength of coalition in a dispersed decision support system with negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(3), pages 947-968.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Wan, Long & Mei, Jiajie & Du, Jiangze, 2021. "Two-agent scheduling of unit processing time jobs to minimize total weighted completion time and total weighted number of tardy jobs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(1), pages 26-35.
    19. Kersten, Gregory E. & Lai, Hsiangchu, 2007. "Satisfiability and completeness of protocols for electronic negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 922-937, July.
    20. 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.
    21. Faria Nassiri-Mofakham & Nasser Ghasem-Aghaee & Mohammad Ali Nematbakhsh & Ahmad Baraani-Dastjerdi, 2008. "A personality-based simulation of bargaining in e-commerce," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 39(1), pages 83-100, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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: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.