IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf1/118.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evolving Automata Negotiate with a Variety of Opponents

Author

Listed:
  • D.D.B. van Bragt and J.A. La Poutre

Abstract

The rapid growth of a global electronic market place, together with the establishment of standard negotiation protocols, currently leads to the development of multi-agent architectures in which artificial agents can negotiate on behalf of their users. Ideally, these agents should be able to negotiate successfully against a variety of opponents with different tactics and different preferences. Furthermore, they should be able to adapt their strategies to deal for instance with agents with different preferences. We show that such flexible and powerful bargaining agents can be obtained using the combination of finite automata and evolutionary algorithms (EAs). Finite automata allow the bargaining agents to behave differently against different opponents. EAs can be used to adapt the agents' bargaining strategies (consisting of finite automata) in successive steps to generate more and more successful strategies in the course of time. The performance of the evolving automata is assessed in a competition against a broad variety of bargaining strategies. Highly-efficient bargaining strategies, which discriminate successfully between opponents with different bargaining tactics, are generated by the EA. We also investigate the situation in which the opponents are also co-evolving (and have different preferences). Positive results are obtained in this setup as well. The evolving automata perform especially well when the bargaining game is very short and a fast discrimination between different opponents becomes necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • D.D.B. van Bragt and J.A. La Poutre, 2001. "Evolving Automata Negotiate with a Variety of Opponents," Computing in Economics and Finance 2001 118, Society for Computational Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf1:118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://homepages.cwi.nl/~bragt/articles/conferences/Cef2001/paper_cef2001.ps
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 2005. "Bargaining and Markets," Levine's Bibliography 666156000000000515, UCLA Department of Economics.
    2. Miller, John H., 1996. "The coevolution of automata in the repeated Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 87-112, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. D.D.B. van Bragt & J.A. La Poutré, 2003. "Why Agents for Automated Negotiations Should Be Adaptive," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 101-118, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Ludo Waltman & Nees Eck & Rommert Dekker & Uzay Kaymak, 2011. "Economic modeling using evolutionary algorithms: the effect of a binary encoding of strategies," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 737-756, December.
    3. D.D.B. van Bragt & J.A. La Poutré, 2003. "Why Agents for Automated Negotiations Should Be Adaptive," Netnomics, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 101-118, November.
    4. Rudolf Vetschera, 2003. "Experimentation and Learning in Repeated Cooperation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 37-60, May.
    5. Guillaume Rocheteau & Pierre‐Olivier Weill, 2011. "Liquidity in Frictional Asset Markets," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(s2), pages 261-282, October.
    6. Wen Li Cheng & Jeffrey Sachs & Xiaokai Yang, 2005. "An Inframarginal Analysis Of The Ricardian Model," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 6, pages 87-107, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Olivier Compte & Andrew Postlewaite, 2007. "Effecting Cooperation," PIER Working Paper Archive 09-019, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 29 May 2009.
    8. Barr, Jason & Saraceno, Francesco, 2009. "Organization, learning and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 39-53, May.
    9. Safarzynska, Karolina & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2011. "Beyond replicator dynamics: Innovation-selection dynamics and optimal diversity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 229-245, May.
    10. Casari, Marco, 2008. "Markets in equilibrium with firms out of equilibrium: A simulation study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 261-276, February.
    11. White, Lucy, 2006. "Prudence in Bargaining: The Effect of Uncertainty on Bargaining Outcomes," CEPR Discussion Papers 5822, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Palokangas, Tapio, 2003. "The political economy of collective bargaining," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 253-264, April.
    13. Kunimoto, Takashi & Serrano, Roberto, 2004. "Bargaining and competition revisited," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 78-88, March.
    14. Rocheteau, Guillaume & Wright, Randall, 2013. "Liquidity and asset-market dynamics," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 275-294.
    15. Wen Li Cheng & Meng-Chun Liu & Xiaokai Yang, 2005. "A Ricardian Model With Endogenous Comparative Advantage And Endogenous Trade Policy Regimes," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: An Inframarginal Approach To Trade Theory, chapter 7, pages 109-130, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2007. "Individual and Social Learning," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 421-421, May.
    17. Gianni De Fraja & Jozsef Sakovics, 2001. "Walras Retrouve: Decentralized Trading Mechanisms and the Competitive Price," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(4), pages 842-863, August.
    18. Eric Bond & Stephen Ching & Edwin L. C. Lai, 2000. "Accession Rules and Trade Agreements: The Case of the WTO," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 1626, Econometric Society.
    19. Xavier Vilà, 2009. "A Model-to-Model Analysis of the Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma: Genetic Algorithms vs. Evolutionary Dynamics," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Cesáreo Hernández & Marta Posada & Adolfo López-Paredes (ed.), Artificial Economics, chapter 0, pages 237-244, Springer.
    20. Chiu, Y. Stephen & Rachel Yang, B., 1999. "The outside option, threat point, and Nash bargaining solution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 181-188, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    evolutionary algorithms; bargaining; finite automata;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
    • C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computational Techniques
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:sce:scecf1:118. 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: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.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.