Knowledge-based acquisition of tradeoff preferences for negotiating agents

A wide range of algorithms have been developed for various types of automated negotiation. In developing such algorithms the main focus has been on their efficiency and their effectiveness. However, this is only part of the picture. Agents typically negotiate on behalf of their owners and for this to be effective the agent must be able to adequately represent the owners' preferences. However, the process by which such knowledge is acquired is typically left unspecified. To remove this shortcoming, we present a case study indicating how the knowledge for a particular negotiation algorithm can be acquired. More precisely, according to the analysis on the automated negotiation model, we identified that user trade-off preferences play a fundamental role in negotiation in general. This topic has been addressed little in the research area of user preference elicitation for general decision making problems as well. In a previous paper, we proposed an exhaustive method to acquire user trade-off preferences. In this paper, we developed another method to remove the limitation of the high user workload of the exhaustive method. Although we cannot say that it can exactly capture user trade-off preferences, it models the main commonalities of trade-off relations and reflects users' individualities as well.

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

[2]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[3]  Roger J. Volkema.  The Negotiation Toolkit: How to Get Exactly What You Want in Any Business or Personal Situation , 1999 .

[4]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Acquiring domain knowledge for negotiating agents: a case of study , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  Jim Blythe,et al.  Visual exploration and incremental utility elicitation , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[6]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  On Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..

[7]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Eliciting Utilities by Refining Theories of Monotonicity and Risk , 2002 .

[8]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Preference Elicitation via Theory Refinement , 2003, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[9]  Tuomas Sandholm,et al.  Effectiveness of Preference Elicitation in Combinatorial Auctions , 2002, AMEC.

[10]  R. Fisher,et al.  Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in , 1981 .

[11]  N. Shadbolt,et al.  Eliciting Knowledge from Experts: A Methodological Analysis , 1995 .

[12]  H. Raiffa.  The art and science of negotiation , 1983 .

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

[14]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce , 2001 .

[15]  Alessandro Sperduti,et al.  Experimental Results on Learning Soft Constraints , 2000, KR.

[16]  Paul T Steele,et al.  Business Negotiation: A Practical Workbook , 1999 .

[17]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Cooperative Negotiation in Autonomic Systems using Incremental Utility Elicitation , 2002, UAI.

[18]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Acquiring Tradeoff Preferences for Automated Negotiations: A Case Study , 2003, AMEC.

[19]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral, multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Similarity Measures on Preference Structures, Part II: Utility Functions , 2001, UAI.

[21]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  Modeling User Preferences and Mediating Agents in Electronic Commerce , 2001, AgentLink.

[22]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Modeling user preferences via theory refinement , 2001, IUI '01.

[23]  Peter Haddawy,et al.  Toward Case-Based Preference Elicitation: Similarity Measures on Preference Structures , 1998, UAI.