Facing the challenge of human-agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling

Automated negotiation agents capable of negotiating efficiently with people must deal with the fact that people are diverse in their behavior and each individual might negotiate in a different manner. Thus, automated agents must rely on a good opponent modeling component to model their counterpart and adapt their behavior to their partner. In this paper we present the KBAgent. The KBAgent is an automated negotiator that negotiates with each person only once, and uses past negotiation sessions of others as a knowledge base for general opponent modeling. The database is used to extract the likelihood of acceptance and proposals that may be offered by the opposite side. Experiments conducted with people show that the KBAgent negotiates efficiently with people and even achieves better utility values than another automated negotiator, shown to be efficient in negotiations with people. Moreover, the KBAgent achieves significantly better agreements, in terms of individual utility, than the human counterparts playing the same role.

[1]  Steven Brown,et al.  Experimental Design and Analysis , 1990 .

[2]  Matthew P. Wand,et al.  Kernel Smoothing , 1995 .

[3]  Michelle LeBaron,et al.  Conflict Across Cultures: A Unique Experience of Bridging Differences , 2006 .

[4]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Different orientations of males and females in computer-mediated negotiations , 2007 .

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

[6]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Modelling Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement learning in experimental games with unique , 1998 .

[7]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[8]  Claudio Bartolini,et al.  AutONA: a system for automated multiple 1-1 negotiation , 2003, EEE International Conference on E-Commerce, 2003. CEC 2003..

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

[10]  James K. Sebenius,et al.  Thinking Coalitionally: Party Arithmetic, Process Opportunism, and Strategic Sequencing , 1992 .

[11]  Sandip Sen,et al.  Modeling opponent decision in repeated one-shot negotiations , 2005, AAMAS '05.

[12]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Negotiator Rationality and Negotiator Cognition: The Interactive Roles of Prescriptive and Descriptive Research , 1991 .

[13]  Ya'akov Gal,et al.  Learning Social Preferences in Games , 2004, AAAI.

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

[15]  Sandip Sen,et al.  Negotiating efficient outcomes over multiple issues , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[16]  A. Roth,et al.  Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria , 1998 .

[17]  R. McKelvey,et al.  An experimental study of the centipede game , 1992 .

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

[19]  Raymond Cohen,et al.  Negotiating across cultures : communication obstacles in international diplomacy , 1991 .

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

[21]  David R. Traum,et al.  Multi-party, Multi-issue, Multi-strategy Negotiation for Multi-modal Virtual Agents , 2008, IVA.

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

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

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

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

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

[27]  G. Junne Conflict across cultures [Review of: M. LeBaron, V. Pillay (2006) Conflict across cultures: a unique experience of bridging differences] , 2008 .

[28]  Frank Dignum,et al.  An empirical study of interest-based negotiation , 2007, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.