A Secure and Fair Protocol that Addresses Weaknesses of the Nash Bargaining Solution in Nonlinear Negotiation

Negotiation with multiple interdependent issues is an important problem since much of real-world negotiation falls into this category. This paper examines the problem that, in such domains, agent utility functions are nonlinear, and thereby can create nonconvex Pareto frontiers. This in turn implies that the Nash Bargaining Solution, which has been viewed as the gold standard for identifying a unique optimal negotiation outcome, does not serve that role in nonlinear domains. In nonlinear domains, unlike linear ones, there can be multiple Nash Bargaining Solutions, and all can be sub-optimal with respect to social welfare and fairness. In this paper, we propose a novel negotiation protocol called SFMP (the Secure and Fair Mediator Protocol) that addresses this challenge, enabling secure multilateral negotiations with fair and pareto-optimal outcomes in nonlinear domains. The protocol works by (1) using nonlinear optimization, combined with a Multi-Party protocol, to find the Pareto front without revealing agent’s private utility information, and (2) selecting the agreement from the Pareto set that maximizes a fair division criterion we call approximated fairness. We demonstrate that SFMP is able to find agreements that maximize fairness and social welfare in nonlinear domains, and out-performs (in terms of outcomes and scalability) previously developed nonlinear negotiation protocols.

[1]  Guoming Lai,et al.  A general model for pareto optimal multi-attribute negotiations , 2008 .

[2]  Zakaria Maamar,et al.  Proceedings of the Workshop on Service-Oriented Computing and Agent Based Engineering (SOCABE 2005) held in conjunction with the 4th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), Utrecht, Netherlands, 25-29 July 2005 , 2005 .

[3]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Approximate and online multi-issue negotiation , 2007, AAMAS '07.

[4]  J. Nash THE BARGAINING PROBLEM , 1950, Classics in Game Theory.

[5]  Mark Klein,et al.  Negotiating Complex Contracts , 2003, AAMAS '02.

[6]  Clara Ponsati,et al.  Multiple-issue bargaining and axiomatic solutions , 1998, Int. J. Game Theory.

[7]  Hiromitsu Hattori,et al.  Multi-issue Negotiation Protocol for Agents: Exploring Nonlinear Utility Spaces , 2007, IJCAI.

[8]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives , 1993 .

[9]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION FOR SHARING A RESOURCE 
 BETWEEN TWO AGENTS * , 2003, Comput. Intell..

[10]  M. Alvard The Ultimatum Game, Fairness, and Cooperation among Big Game Hunters , 2004 .

[11]  Adi Shamir,et al.  How to share a secret , 1979, CACM.

[12]  Mihai Barbuceanu,et al.  A multi-attribute utility theoretic negotiation architecture for electronic commerce , 2000, AGENTS '00.

[13]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Valuations of Possible States (VPS): a quantitative framework for analysis of privacy loss among collaborative personal assistant agents , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[14]  Ivan Marsá-Maestre,et al.  Effective bidding and deal identification for negotiations in highly nonlinear scenarios , 2009, AAMAS.

[15]  Milind Tambe,et al.  Analysis of Privacy Loss in Distributed Constraint Optimization , 2006, AAAI.

[16]  Katia Sycara,et al.  A Decentralized Model for Multi-Attribute Negotiations with Incomplete Information and General Utility Functions , 2022 .

[17]  A. Rubinstein,et al.  The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling , 1985 .

[18]  Ryszard Kowalczyk,et al.  Searching for fair joint gains in agent-based negotiation , 2009, AAMAS.

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

[20]  A. Shaked,et al.  Testing non-cooperative bargaining theory: a preliminary study , 1985 .

[21]  Katia P. Sycara,et al.  A decentralized model for automated multi-attribute negotiations with incomplete information and general utility functions , 2008, Multiagent Grid Syst..

[22]  Koen V. Hindriks,et al.  Eliminating Interdependencies Between Issues for Multi-issue Negotiation , 2006, CIA.

[23]  Peter Norvig,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach , 1995 .

[24]  Roger B. Myerson,et al.  Game theory - Analysis of Conflict , 1991 .

[25]  Yann Chevaleyre,et al.  Reaching Envy-Free States in Distributed Negotiation Settings , 2007, IJCAI.

[26]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments , 2001, Intelligent robots and autonomous agents.

[27]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  An Agent Architecture for Multi-Attribute Negotiation , 2001, IJCAI.

[28]  Jack M. Robertson,et al.  Cake-cutting algorithms - be fair if you can , 1998 .

[29]  Takayuki Ito,et al.  A preliminary result on a representative-based multi-round protocol for multi-issue negotiations , 2008, AAMAS.

[30]  Vincenzo Denicolò,et al.  Nash Bargaining Theory, Nonconvex Problems and Social Welfare Orderings , 2000 .

[31]  Valentin Robu,et al.  Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[32]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  An analysis of feasible solutions for multi-issue negotiation involving nonlinear utility functions , 2009, AAMAS.

[33]  Takayuki Ito,et al.  Approximately fair and secure protocols for multiple interdependent issues negotiation , 2009, AAMAS.

[34]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Optimal negotiation of multiple issues in incomplete information settings , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[35]  Gary E. Bolton A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence , 1991 .

[36]  M. Kaneko An extension of the Nash bargaining problem and the Nash social welfare function , 1980 .

[37]  W. Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining , 1982 .

[38]  Mihai Barbuceanu,et al.  Multi-attribute Utility Theoretic Negotiation for Electronic Commerce , 2000, AMEC.

[39]  W. Thomson Chapter 35 Cooperative models of bargaining , 1994 .

[40]  Kate Larson,et al.  The Blind Leading the Blind: A Third-Party Model for Bilateral Multi-issue Negotiations under Incomplete Information , 2009 .

[41]  H. L. Poutré,et al.  Constructing the Structure of Utility Graphs Used in Multi-Item Negotiation Through Collaborative Filtering of Aggregate Buyer Preferences , 2008 .

[42]  Xin Li,et al.  Adaptive, confidence-based multiagent negotiation strategy , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..

[43]  Mark Klein,et al.  Harnessing Collective Intelligence to Address Global Climate Change , 2007, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization.

[44]  T. Bosse,et al.  Human vs. computer behavior in multi-issue negotiation , 2005, Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiation Mechanisms in Multi-Agent Systems (RRS'05).

[45]  Koen Hindriks Man-Machine Avoiding Approximation Errors in Multi-Issue Negotiation with Issue Dependencies , 2008 .

[46]  Enrico Gerding,et al.  Efficient methods for automated multi‐issue negotiation: Negotiating over a two‐part tariff , 2006, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[47]  Takayuki Ito,et al.  Preliminary Result on Secure Protocols for Multiple Issue Negotiation Problems , 2008, PRIMA.

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

[49]  John K. Debenham Bargaining with information , 2004, Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2004. AAMAS 2004..