What to bid and when to stop

Negotiation is an important activity in human society, and is studied by various disciplines, ranging from economics and game theory, to electronic commerce, social psychology, and artificial intelligence. Traditionally, negotiation is a necessary, but also time-consuming and expensive activity. Therefore, in the last decades there has been a large interest in the automation of negotiation, for example in the setting of e-commerce. This interest is fueled by the promise of automated agents eventually being able to negotiate on behalf of human negotiators.Every year, automated negotiation agents are improving in various ways, and there is now a large body of negotiation strategies available, all with their unique strengths and weaknesses. For example, some agents are able to predict the opponent's preferences very well, while others focus more on having a sophisticated bidding strategy. The problem however, is that there is little incremental improvement in agent design, as the agents are tested in varying negotiation settings, using a diverse set of performance measures. This makes it very difficult to meaningfully compare the agents, let alone their underlying techniques. As a result, we lack a reliable way to pinpoint the most effective components in a negotiating agent.There are two major advantages of distinguishing between the different components of a negotiating agent's strategy: first, it allows the study of the behavior and performance of the components in isolation. For example, it becomes possible to compare the preference learning component of all agents, and to identify the best among them. Second, we can proceed to mix and match different components to create new negotiation strategies., e.g.: replacing the preference learning technique of an agent and then examining whether this makes a difference. Such a procedure enables us to combine the individual components to systematically explore the space of possible negotiation strategies.To develop a compositional approach to evaluate and combine the components, we identify structure in most agent designs by introducing the BOA architecture, in which we can develop and integrate the different components of a negotiating agent. We identify three main components of a general negotiation strategy; namely a bidding strategy (B), possibly an opponent model (O), and an acceptance strategy (A). The bidding strategy considers what concessions it deems appropriate given its own preferences, and takes the opponent into account by using an opponent model. The acceptance strategy decides whether offers proposed by the opponent should be accepted.The BOA architecture is integrated into a generic negotiation environment called Genius, which is a software environment for designing and evaluating negotiation strategies. To explore the negotiation strategy space of the negotiation research community, we amend the Genius repository with various existing agents and scenarios from literature. Additionally, we organize a yearly international negotiation competition (ANAC) to harvest even more strategies and scenarios. ANAC also acts as an evaluation tool for negotiation strategies, and encourages the design of negotiation strategies and scenarios.We re-implement agents from literature and ANAC and decouple them to fit into the BOA architecture without introducing any changes in their behavior. For each of the three components, we manage to find and analyze the best ones for specific cases, as described below. We show that the BOA framework leads to significant improvements in agent design by wining ANAC 2013, which had 19 participating teams from 8 international institutions, with an agent that is designed using the BOA framework and is informed by a preliminary analysis of the different components.In every negotiation, one of the negotiating parties must accept an offer to reach an agreement. Therefore, it is important that a negotiator employs a proficient mechanism to decide under which conditions to accept. When contemplating whether to accept an offer, the agent is faced with the acceptance dilemma: accepting the offer may be suboptimal, as better offers may still be presented before time runs out. On the other hand, accepting too late may prevent an agreement from being reached, resulting in a break off with no gain for either party. We classify and compare state-of-the-art generic acceptance conditions. We propose new acceptance strategies and we demonstrate that they outperform the other conditions. We also provide insight into why some conditions work better than others and investigate correlations between the properties of the negotiation scenario and the efficacy of acceptance conditions.Later, we adopt a more principled approach by applying optimal stopping theory to calculate the optimal decision on the acceptance of an offer. We approach the decision of whether to accept as a sequential decision problem, by modeling the bids received as a stochastic process. We determine the optimal acceptance policies for particular opponent classes and we present an approach to estimate the expected range of offers when the type of opponent is unknown. We show that the proposed approach is able to find the optimal time to accept, and improves upon all existing acceptance strategies.Another principal component of a negotiating agent's strategy is its ability to take the opponent's preferences into account. The quality of an opponent model can be measured in two different ways. One is to use the agent's performance as a benchmark for the model's quality. We evaluate and compare the performance of a selection of state-of-the-art opponent modeling techniques in negotiation. We provide an overview of the factors influencing the quality of a model and we analyze how the performance of opponent models depends on the negotiation setting. We identify a class of simple and surprisingly effective opponent modeling techniques that did not receive much previous attention in literature.The other way to measure the quality of an opponent model is to directly evaluate its accuracy by using similarity measures. We review all methods to measure the accuracy of an opponent model and we then analyze how changes in accuracy translate into performance differences. Moreover, we pinpoint the best predictors for good performance. This leads to new insights concerning how to construct an opponent model, and what we need to measure when optimizing performance.Finally, we take two different approaches to gain more insight into effective bidding strategies. We present a new classification method for negotiation strategies, based on their pattern of concession making against different kinds of opponents. We apply this technique to classify some well-known negotiating strategies, and we formulate guidelines on how agents should bid in order to be successful, which gives insight into the bidding strategy space of negotiating agents. Furthermore, we apply optimal stopping theory again, this time to find the concessions that maximize utility for the bidder against particular opponents. We show there is an interesting connection between optimal bidding and optimal acceptance strategies, in the sense that they are mirrored versions of each other.Lastly, after analyzing all components separately, we put the pieces back together again. We take all BOA components accumulated so far, including the best ones, and combine them all together to explore the space of negotiation strategies.We compute the contribution of each component to the overall negotiation result, and we study the interaction between components. We find that combining the best agent components indeed makes the strongest agents. This shows that the component-based view of the BOA architecture not only provides a useful basis for developing negotiating agents but also provides a useful analytical tool. By varying the BOA components we are able to demonstrate the contribution of each component to the negotiation result, and thus analyze the significance of each. The bidding strategy is by far the most important to consider, followed by the acceptance conditions and finally followed by the opponent model.Our results validate the analytical approach of the BOA framework to first optimize the individual components, and then to recombine them into a negotiating agent

TOKEN-BASED APPROACH FOR SCALABLE TEAMCOORDINATION

To form a cooperative multiagent team, autonomous agents are required to harmonize activities and make the best use of exclusive resources to achieve their common goal. In addition, to handle uncertainty and quickly respond to external environmental events, they should share knowledge and sensor in formation. Unlike small team coordination, agents in scalable team must limit the amount of their communications while maximizing team performance. Communication decisions are critical to scalable-team coordination because agents should target their communications, but these decisions cannot be supported by a precise model or by complete team knowledge.The hypothesis of my thesis is: local routing of tokens encapsulating discrete elements of control, based only on decentralized local probability decision models, will lead to efficient scalable coordination with several hundreds of agents. In my research, coordination controls including all domain knowledge, tasks and exclusive resources are encapsulated into tokens. By passing tokens around, agents transfer team controls encapsulated in the tokens. The team benefits when a token is passed to an agent who can make use of it, but communications incur costs. Hence, no single agent has sole responsible over any shared decision. The key problem lies in how agents make the correct decisions to target communications and pass tokens so that they will potentially benefit the team most when considering communication costs.My research on token-based coordination algorithm starts from the investigation of random walk of token movement. I found a little increase of the probabilities that agents make the right decision to pass a token, the overall efficiency of the token movement could be greatly enhanced. Moreover, if token movements are modeled as a Markov chain, I found that the efficiency of passing tokens could be significantly varied based on different network topologies.My token-based algorithm starts at the investigation of each single decision theoretic agents. Although under the uncertainties that exist in large multiagent teams, agents cannot act optimal, it is still feasible to build a probability model for each agents to rationally pass tokens. Specifically, this decision only allow agent to pass tokens over an associate network where only a few of team members are considered as token receiver.My proposed algorithm will build each agent's individual decision model based on all of its previously received tokens. This model will not require the complete knowledge of the team. The key idea is that I will make use of the domain relationships between pairs of coordination controls. Previously received tokens will help the receiver to infer whether the sender could benefit the team if a related token is received. Therefore, each token is used to improve the routing of other tokens, leading to a dramatic performance improvement when more tokens are added. By exploring the relationships between different types of coordination controls, an integrated coordination algorithm will be built, and an improvement of one aspect of coordination will enhance the performance of the others

A distributed approach for robust, scalable, and flexible dynamic ridesharing

This dissertation provides a solution to dynamic ridesharing problem, a NP-hard optimization problem, where a fleet of vehicles move on a road network and ridesharing requests arrive continuously. The goal is to optimally assign vehicles to requests with the objective of minimizing total travel distance of vehicles and satisfying constraints such as vehicles’ capacity and time window for pick-up and drop-off locations. The dominant approach for solving dynamic ridesharing problem is centralized approach that is intractable when size of the problem grows, thus not scalable. To address scalability, a novel agent-based representation of the problem, along with a set of algorithms to solve the problem, is proposed. Besides being scalable, the proposed approach is flexible and, compared to centralized approach, more robust, i.e., vehicle agents can handle changes in the network dynamically (e.g., in case of a vehicle breakdown) without need to re-start the operation, and individual vehicle failure will not affect the process of decision-making, respectively. In the decentralized approach the underlying combinatorial optimization is formulated as a distributed optimization problem and is decomposed into multiple subproblems using spectral graph theory. Each subproblem is formulated as DCOP (Distributed Constraint Optimization Problem) based on a factor graph representation, including a group of cooperative agents that work together to take an optimal (or near-optimal) joint action. Then a min-sum algorithm is used on the factor graph to solve the DCOP. A simulator is implemented to empirically evaluate the proposed approach and benchmark it against two alternative approaches, solutions obtained by ILP (Integer Linear Programming) and a greedy heuristic algorithm. The results show that the decentralized approach scales well with different number of vehicle agents, capacity of vehicle agents, and number of requests and outperforms: (a) the greedy heuristic algorithm in terms of solution quality and (b) the ILP in terms of execution time

Organization based multiagent architecture for distributed environments

[EN]Distributed environments represent a complex field in which applied solutions should be flexible and include significant adaptation capabilities. These environments are related to problems where multiple users and devices may interact, and where simple and local solutions could possibly generate good results, but may not be effective with regards to use and interaction. There are many techniques that can be employed to face this kind of problems, from CORBA to multi-agent systems, passing by web-services and SOA, among others. All those methodologies have their advantages and disadvantages that are properly analyzed in this documents, to finally explain the new architecture presented as a solution for distributed environment problems. The new architecture for solving complex solutions in distributed environments presented here is called OBaMADE: Organization Based Multiagent Architecture for Distributed Environments. It is a multiagent architecture based on the organizations of agents paradigm, where the agents in the architecture are structured into organizations to improve their organizational capabilities. The reasoning power of the architecture is based on the Case-Based Reasoning methology, being implemented in a internal organization that uses agents to create services to solve the external request made by the users. The OBaMADE architecture has been successfully applied to two different case studies where its prediction capabilities have been properly checked. Those case studies have showed optimistic results and, being complex systems, have demonstrated the abstraction and generalizations capabilities of the architecture. Nevertheless OBaMADE is intended to be able to solve much other kind of problems in distributed environments scenarios. It should be applied to other varieties of situations and to other knowledge fields to fully develop its potencial.[ES]Los entornos distribuidos representan un campo de conocimiento complejo en el que las soluciones a aplicar deben ser flexibles y deben contar con gran capacidad de adaptación. Este tipo de entornos está normalmente relacionado con problemas donde varios usuarios y dispositivos entran en juego. Para solucionar dichos problemas, pueden utilizarse sistemas locales que, aunque ofrezcan buenos resultados en términos de calidad de los mismos, no son tan efectivos en cuanto a la interacción y posibilidades de uso. Existen múltiples técnicas que pueden ser empleadas para resolver este tipo de problemas, desde CORBA a sistemas multiagente, pasando por servicios web y SOA, entre otros. Todas estas mitologías tienen sus ventajas e inconvenientes, que se analizan en este documento, para explicar, finalmente, la nueva arquitectura presentada como una solución para los problemas generados en entornos distribuidos. La nueva arquitectura aquí se llama OBaMADE, que es el acrónimo del inglés Organization Based Multiagent Architecture for Distributed Environments (Arquitectura Multiagente Basada en Organizaciones para Entornos Distribuidos). Se trata de una arquitectura multiagente basasa en el paradigma de las organizaciones de agente, donde los agentes que forman parte de la arquitectura se estructuran en organizaciones para mejorar sus capacidades organizativas. La capacidad de razonamiento de la arquitectura está basada en la metodología de razonamiento basado en casos, que se ha implementado en una de las organizaciones internas de la arquitectura por medio de agentes que crean servicios que responden a las solicitudes externas de los usuarios. La arquitectura OBaMADE se ha aplicado de forma exitosa a dos casos de estudio diferentes, en los que se han demostrado sus capacidades predictivas. Aplicando OBaMADE a estos casos de estudio se han obtenido resultados esperanzadores y, al ser sistemas complejos, se han demostrado las capacidades tanto de abstracción como de generalización de la arquitectura presentada. Sin embargo, esta arquitectura está diseñada para poder ser aplicada a más tipo de problemas de entornos distribuidos. Debe ser aplicada a más variadas situaciones y a otros campos de conocimiento para desarrollar completamente el potencial de esta arquitectura

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Approaches to Energy Demand-Side Response: A Systematic Review

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in Demand Response (DR) as a means to provide flexibility, and hence improve the reliability of energy systems in a cost-effective way. Yet, the high complexity of the tasks associated with DR, combined with their use of large-scale data and the frequent need for near real-time de-cisions, means that Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) — a branch of AI — have recently emerged as key technologies for enabling demand-side response. AI methods can be used to tackle various challenges, ranging from selecting the optimal set of consumers to respond, learning their attributes and pref-erences, dynamic pricing, scheduling and control of devices, learning how to incentivise participants in the DR schemes and how to reward them in a fair and economically efficient way. This work provides an overview of AI methods utilised for DR applications, based on a systematic review of over 160 papers, 40 companies and commercial initiatives, and 21 large-scale projects. The papers are classified with regards to both the AI/ML algorithm(s) used and the application area in energy DR. Next, commercial initiatives are presented (including both start-ups and established companies) and large-scale innovation projects, where AI methods have been used for energy DR. The paper concludes with a discussion of advantages and potential limitations of reviewed AI techniques for different DR tasks, and outlines directions for future research in this fast-growing area

On the Combination of Game-Theoretic Learning and Multi Model Adaptive Filters

This paper casts coordination of a team of robots within the framework of game theoretic learning algorithms. In particular a novel variant of fictitious play is proposed, by considering multi-model adaptive filters as a method to estimate other players’ strategies. The proposed algorithm can be used as a coordination mechanism between players when they should take decisions under uncertainty. Each player chooses an action after taking into account the actions of the other players and also the uncertainty. Uncertainty can occur either in terms of noisy observations or various types of other players. In addition, in contrast to other game-theoretic and heuristic algorithms for distributed optimisation, it is not necessary to find the optimal parameters a priori. Various parameter values can be used initially as inputs to different models. Therefore, the resulting decisions will be aggregate results of all the parameter values. Simulations are used to test the performance of the proposed methodology against other game-theoretic learning algorithms.</p

A theoretical and computational basis for CATNETS

The main content of this report is the identification and definition of market mechanisms for Application Layer Networks (ALNs). On basis of the structured Market Engineering process, the work comprises the identification of requirements which adequate market mechanisms for ALNs have to fulfill. Subsequently, two mechanisms for each, the centralized and the decentralized case are described in this document. These build the theoretical foundation for the work within the following two years of the CATNETS project. --Grid Computing