Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent

Many tasks in day-to-day life involve interactions among several people. Many of these interactions involve negotiating over a desired outcome. Negotiation in and of itself is not an easy task, and it becomes more complex under conditions of incomplete information. For example, the parties do not know in advance the exact tradeoff of their counterparts between different outcomes. Furthermore information regarding the preferences of counterparts might only be elicited during the negotiation process itself. In this paper we propose a model for an automated negotiation agent capable of negotiating with bounded rational agents under conditions of incomplete information. We test this agent against people in two distinct domains, in order to verify that its model is generic, and thus can be adapted to any domain as long as the negotiators' preferences can be expressed in additive utilities. Our results indicate that the automated agent reaches more agreements and plays more effectively than its human counterparts. Moreover, in most of the cases, the automated agent achieves significantly better agreements, in terms of individual utility, than the human counterparts playing the same role.

[1]  S. Vajda,et al.  GAMES AND DECISIONS; INTRODUCTION AND CRITICAL SURVEY. , 1958 .

[2]  James Jaccard,et al.  Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1983 .

[3]  Kenneth O. May,et al.  Review: R. Duncan Luce, Individual choice behavior, a theoretical analysis , 1960 .

[4]  R. Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. , 1960 .

[5]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[6]  Moshe Tennenholtz On Stable Social Laws and Qualitative Equilibrium for Risk-Averse Agents , 1996, KR.

[7]  T. Mexia,et al.  Author ' s personal copy , 2009 .

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

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

[10]  Richard Honeck,et al.  Experimental design and analysis , 1983 .

[11]  David Gale,et al.  Review: R. Duncan Luce and Howard Raiffa, Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey , 1958 .

[12]  Lawrence M. Ausubel,et al.  Bargaining in Incomplete Information , 2002 .

[13]  J. Wilkenfeld,et al.  Mediating International Crises , 2003 .

[14]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Anomalous Behavior in a Traveler's Dilemma? , 1999 .

[15]  P. T. Hopmann The negotiation process and the resolution of international conflicts , 1996 .

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

[17]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation , 2004, Artif. Intell..

[18]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[19]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis , 1979 .

[20]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[21]  R. Luce,et al.  The Choice Axiom after Twenty Years , 1977 .

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

[23]  Didier Dubois,et al.  Decision-theoretic foundations of qualitative possibility theory , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[24]  Nils J. Nilsson,et al.  Artificial Intelligence , 1974, IFIP Congress.

[25]  E. Rasmusen Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory , 2006 .

[26]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[27]  John S. J. Hsu,et al.  Bayesian Methods: An Analysis for Statisticians and Interdisciplinary Researchers , 1999 .

[28]  A. Stuart,et al.  Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. , 1957 .

[29]  Ronen I. Brafman,et al.  An axiomatic treatment of three qualitative decision criteria , 2000, JACM.