Towards a Quality Assessment Method for Learning Preference Profiles in Negotiation

In automated negotiation, information gained about an opponent’s preference profile by means of learning techniques may significantly improve an agent’s negotiation performance. It therefore is useful to gain a better understanding of how various negotiation factors influence the quality of learning. The quality of learning techniques in negotiation are typically assessed indirectly by means of comparing the utility levels of agreed outcomes and other more global negotiation parameters. An evaluation of learning based on such general criteria, however, does not provide any insight into the influence of various aspects of negotiation on the quality of the learned model itself. The quality may depend on such aspects as the domain of negotiation, the structure of the preference profiles, the negotiation strategies used by the parties, and others. To gain a better understanding of the performance of proposed learning techniques in the context of negotiation and to be able to assess the potential to improve the performance of such techniques a more systematic assessment method is needed. In this paper we propose such a systematic method to analyse the quality of the information gained about opponent preferences by learning in single-instance negotiations. The method includes measures to assess the quality of a learned preference profile and proposes an experimental setup to analyse the influence of various negotiation aspects on the quality of learning. We apply the method to a Bayesian learning approach for learning an opponent’s preference profile and discuss our findings.

[1]  Bruce Spencer,et al.  NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC A Bayesian classifier for learning opponents' preferences in multi-object automated negotiation , 2007 .

[2]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Agent-mediated Electronic Commerce : A Survey , 1998 .

[3]  G. E. Kersten,et al.  Rational Agents, Contract Curves, and Inefficient Compromises Report , 1997 .

[4]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  An Automated Agent for Bilateral Negotiation with Bounded Rational Agents with Incomplete Information , 2006, ECAI.

[5]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Similarity of personal preferences: Theoretical foundations and empirical analysis , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Learning to Negotiate Optimally in Non-stationary Environments , 2006, CIA.

[7]  R. P. Sundarraj,et al.  Learning algorithms for single-instance electronic negotiations using the time-dependent behavioral tactic , 2005, TOIT.

[8]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information , 2007, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[9]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents , 1998, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[10]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Benefits of Learning in Negotiation , 1997, AAAI/IAAI.

[11]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making , 2003 .

[12]  Jacques L. Koko,et al.  The Art and Science of Negotiation , 2009 .

[13]  K. Hindriks,et al.  Negotiation Dynamics: Analysis, Concession Tactics, and Outcomes , 2007, 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (IAT'07).

[14]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Inferring Utilities from Negotiation Actions , 2004, AI&M.

[15]  Leigh Thompson,et al.  Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[16]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Using similarity criteria to make issue trade-offs in automated negotiations , 2002, Artif. Intell..

[17]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  Opponent modelling in automated multi-issue negotiation using Bayesian learning , 2008, AAMAS.

[18]  Dhananjay K. Gode,et al.  Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  L. Thompson,et al.  The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator , 1997 .

[20]  E. Rowland Theory of Games and Economic Behavior , 1946, Nature.

[21]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  Bayesian learning in negotiation , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[22]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[23]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Learning on opponent's preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation trade-offs , 2004, ICEC '04.

[24]  Chunyan Miao,et al.  Economically Inspired Self-healing Model for Multi-Agent Systems , 2007 .