Automated Negotiation with Gaussian Process-based Utility Models

textabstractDesigning agents that can efficiently learn and integrate user's preferences into decision making processes is a key challenge in automated negotiation. While accurate knowledge of user preferences is highly desirable, eliciting the necessary information might be rather costly, since frequent user interactions may cause inconvenience. Therefore, efficient elicitation strategies (minimizing elicitation costs) for inferring relevant information are critical. We introduce a stochastic, inverse-ranking utility model compatible with the Gaussian Process preference learning framework and integrate it into a (belief) Markov Decision Process paradigm which formalizes automated negotiation processes with incomplete information. Our utility model, which naturally maps ordinal preferences (inferred from the user) into (random) utility values (with the randomness reflecting the underlying uncertainty), provides the basic quantitative modeling ingredient for automated (agent-based) negotiation.

[1]  R. Philip,et al.  High-Frequency Trading Strategies , 2018, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Yasser F. O. Mohammad,et al.  FastVOI: Efficient Utility Elicitation During Negotiations , 2018, PRIMA.

[3]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[4]  Wolfgang Ketter,et al.  Power TAC: A competitive economic simulation of the smart grid , 2013 .

[5]  Wei Chu,et al.  Preference learning with Gaussian processes , 2005, ICML.

[6]  Sarvapali D. Ramchurn,et al.  Minimising intrusiveness in pervasive computing environments using multi-agent negotiation , 2004, The First Annual International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems: Networking and Services, 2004. MOBIQUITOUS 2004..

[7]  Kuldeep Kumar,et al.  Agent-based negotiation and decision making for dynamic supply chain formation , 2009, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell..

[8]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Multiagent Negotiation under Time Constraints , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[9]  Ash Booth,et al.  High frequency trading strategies, market fragility and price spikes: an agent based model perspective , 2018, Annals of Operations Research.

[10]  Catholijn M. Jonker,et al.  When Will Negotiation Agents Be Able to Represent Us? The Challenges and Opportunities for Autonomous Negotiators , 2017, IJCAI.

[11]  David C. Kingsley,et al.  Preference Uncertainty, Preference Learning, and Paired Comparison Experiments , 2010, Land Economics.

[12]  Michael Kaisers,et al.  Preference Learning in Automated Negotiation Using Gaussian Uncertainty Models , 2019, AAMAS.

[13]  Enrico Gerding,et al.  Optimal Incremental Preference Elicitation during Negotiation , 2015, IJCAI.

[14]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  A POMDP formulation of preference elicitation problems , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[15]  Monica M. C. Schraefel,et al.  Optimal Negotiation Decision Functions in Time-Sensitive Domains , 2015, 2015 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT).

[16]  Ryszard Kowalczyk,et al.  On Fuzzy e-Negotiation Agents: autonomous negotiation with incomplete and imprecise information , 2000, Proceedings 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[17]  Roie Zivan,et al.  POMDP based Negotiation Modeling , 2009 .

[18]  Kwang Mong Sim,et al.  Agent-Based Cloud Computing , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Services Computing.

[19]  Daphne Koller,et al.  Making Rational Decisions Using Adaptive Utility Elicitation , 2000, AAAI/IAAI.

[20]  Steven O. Kimbrough,et al.  Cooperative Agent Systems: Artificial Agents Play the Ultimatum Game , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[21]  Wei Chu,et al.  Gaussian Processes for Ordinal Regression , 2005, J. Mach. Learn. Res..