5 research outputs found

    Acceptance conditions in automated negotiation

    No full text
    In every negotiation with a deadline, one of the negotiating parties has to accept an offer to avoid a break off. A break off is usually an undesirable outcome for both parties, therefore it is important that a negotiator employs a proficient mechanism to decide under which conditions to accept. When designing such conditions one is faced with the acceptance dilemma: accepting the current offer may be suboptimal, as better offers may still be presented. 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. Motivated by the challenges of bilateral negotiations between automated agents and by the results and insights of the automated negotiating agents competition (ANAC), we classify and compare state-of-the-art generic acceptance conditions. We focus on decoupled acceptance conditions, i.e. conditions that do not depend on the bidding strategy that is used. We performed extensive experiments to compare the performance of acceptance conditions in combination with a broad range of bidding strategies and negotiation domains. Furthermore we propose new acceptance conditions and we demonstrate that they outperform the other conditions that we study. In particular, it is shown that they outperform the standard acceptance condition of comparing the current offer with the offer the agent is ready to send out. We also provide insight in to why some conditions work better than others and investigate correlations between the properties of the negotiation environment and the efficacy of acceptance condition

    Measuring the performance of online opponent models in automated bilateral negotiation

    No full text
    n important aim in bilateral negotiations is to achieve a win-win solution for both parties; therefore, a critical aspect of a negotiating agent’s success is its ability to take the opponent’s preferences into account. Every year, new negotiation agents are introduced with better learning techniques to model the opponent. Our main goal in this work is to evaluate and compare the performance of a selection of state-of-the-art online opponent modeling techniques in negotiation, and to determine under which circumstances they are beneficial in a real-time, online negotiation setting. Towards this end, 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. This results in better insight into the performance of opponent models, and allows us to pinpoint well-performing opponent modeling techniques that did not receive much previous attention in literature

    Learning about the opponent in automated bilateral negotiation: a comprehensive survey of opponent modeling techniques

    Get PDF
    A negotiation between agents is typically an incomplete information game, where the agents initially do not know their opponent’s preferences or strategy. This poses a challenge, as efficient and effective negotiation requires the bidding agent to take the other’s wishes and future behavior into account when deciding on a proposal. Therefore, in order to reach better and earlier agreements, an agent can apply learning techniques to construct a model of the opponent. There is a mature body of research in negotiation that focuses on modeling the opponent, but there exists no recent survey of commonly used opponent modeling techniques. This work aims to advance and integrate knowledge of the field by providing a comprehensive survey of currently existing opponent models in a bilateral negotiation setting. We discuss all possible ways opponent modeling has been used to benefit agents so far, and we introduce a taxonomy of currently existing opponent models based on their underlying learning techniques. We also present techniques to measure the success of opponent models and provide guidelines for deciding on the appropriate performance measures for every opponent model type in our taxonomy
    corecore