Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider automated negotiation as a process carried out by software agents to reach a consensus. To automate negotiation, we expect agents to understand their user’s preferences, generate offers that will satisfy their user, and decide whether counter offers are satisfactory. For this purpose, a crucial aspect is the treatment of preferences. An agent not only needs to understand its own user’s preferences, but also its opponent’s preferences so that agreements can be reached. Accordingly, this paper proposes a learning algorithm that can be used by a producer during negotiation to understand consumer’s needs and to offer services that respect consumer’s preferences. Our proposed algorithm is based on inductive learning but also incorporates the idea of revision. Thus, as the negotiation proceeds, a producer can revise its idea of the consumer’s preferences. The learning is enhanced with the use of ontologies so that similar service requests can be identified and treated similarly. Further, the algorithm is targeted to learning both conjunctive as well as disjunctive preferences. Hence, even if the consumer’s preferences are specified in complex ways, our algorithm can learn and guide the producer to create well-targeted offers. Further, our algorithm can detect whether some preferences cannot be satisfied early and thus consensus cannot be reached. Our experimental results show that the producer using our learning algorithm negotiates faster and more successfully with customers compared to several other algorithms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abedin, F., Chao, K.-M., Godwin, N., & Arochena, H. (2009). Preference ordering in agenda based multi-issue negotiation for service level agreement. In WAINA ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 international conference on advanced information networking and applications workshops, (pp. 19–24). Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.

  2. Alpaydın E. (2004) Introduction to machine learning. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aydoğan, R., & Yolum, P. (2007). Learning consumer preferences using semantic similarity. In Proceedings of sixth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1293–1300). Honolulu, Hawaii.

  4. Aydoğan, R., & Yolum, P. (2009). Ontology-based learning for negotiation. In IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on intelligent agent technology (IAT 2009) (pp. 177–184). Milan, Italy.

  5. Aydoğan R., & Yolum, P. (2010). The effect of preference representation on learning preferences in negotiation. In The third international workshop on agent-based complex automated negotiations (ACAN 2010) (pp. 1–8). Toronto, Canada.

  6. Boutilier C., Brafman R. I., Domshlak C., Hoos H. H., Poole D. (2004) Cp-nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 21: 135–191

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Boutilier, C., Regan, K., & Viappiani, P. (2009). Preference elicitation with subjective features. In RecSys ’09: Proceedings of the third ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 341–344). New York, NY, USA: ACM

  8. Buffett, S., & Spencer, B. (2005). Learning opponents’ preferences in multi-object automated negotiation. In ICEC ’05: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Electronic commerce (pp. 300–305). New York, NY, USA: ACM

  9. Choi S. P. M., Liu J., Chan S. (2001) A genetic agent-based negotiation system. Computer Networks 37(2): 195–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Demšar J. (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research 7: 1–30

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Faratin P., Sierra C., Jennings N. R. (2002) Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence 142: 205–237

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman M. (1940) A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 11(1): 86–92

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Gruber T. R. (1993) A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acqusition 5(2): 199–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hindriks, K., & Tykhonov, D. (2008). Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using bayesian learning. In 7th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 331–338).

  15. Jena, (2009). http://jena.sourceforge.net/.

  16. Jennings N. R., Faratin P., Lomuscio A. R., Parsons S., Sierra C., Wooldridge M. (2001) Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2): 199–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jonker C. M., Robu V., Treur J. (2007) An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 15(2): 221–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lai, G., Li, C., Sycara, K., & Giampapa, J.A. (2004). Literature review on multi-attribute negotiations. Technical report, Robotics Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.

  19. Lau R. Y. K., Tang M., Wong O., Milliner S. W., Chen Y. P. (2006) An evolutionary learning approach for adaptive negotiation agents. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 21(1): 41–72

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Luo X., Jennings N. R., Shadbolt N., Leung H., Lee J. H. (2003) A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artifical Intelligence 148(1–2): 53–102

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. McGuinness, D. L. (2003). Ontologies come of age. In Spinning the semantic web (pp. 171–194). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  22. Mitchell T. M. (1982) Generalization as search. Artificial Intelligence 18(2): 203–226

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Mitchell T. M. (1997) Machine learning. McGraw Hill, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Quinlan J. R. (1986) Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning 1(1): 81–106

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rahwan I., Ramchurn S. D., Jennings N. R., Mcburney P., Parsons S., Sonenberg L. (2003) Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4): 343–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Raiffa H. (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  27. Raileanu L. E., Stoffel K. (2004) Theoretical comparison between the gini index and information gain criteria. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 41(1): 77–93

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Ramchurn, S. D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., & Jennings, N. R. (2006). Negotiating using rewards. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (pp. 400–407).

  29. Shannon C., Petigara N., Seshasai S. (1948) A mathematical theory of. Communication, Bell System Technical Journal 27: 379–423

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Somefun, D. J. A., & Poutré, J. A. L. (2007). A fast method for learning non-linear preferences online using anonymous negotiation data. In Agent-mediated electronic commerce. Automated negotiation and strategy design for electronic markets. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 118–131). Springer

  31. Wine, (2009). http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-owl-guide-20030818/wine.rdf.

  32. Zheng D. D., Sycara K. (1998) Bayesian learning in negotiation. International Journal of Human-Computers Studies 48(1): 125–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Engineering, Bogazici University, 34342, Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey

    Reyhan Aydoğan & Pınar Yolum

Authors
  1. Reyhan Aydoğan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pınar Yolum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reyhan Aydoğan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aydoğan, R., Yolum, P. Learning opponent’s preferences for effective negotiation: an approach based on concept learning. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 24, 104–140 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9147-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-010-9147-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation