In this article, an agent-based negotiation model for negotiation teams that negotiate a deal with an opponent is presented. Agent-based negotiation teams are groups of agents that join together as a single negotiation party because they share an interest that is related to the negotiation process. The model relies on a trusted mediator that coordinates and helps team members in the decisions that they have to take during the negotiation process: which offer is sent to the opponent, and whether the offers received from the opponent are accepted. The main strength of the proposed negotiation model is the fact that it guarantees unanimity within team decisions since decisions report a utility to team members that is greater than or equal to their aspiration levels at each negotiation round. This work analyzes how unanimous decisions are taken within the team and the robustness of the model against different types of manipulations. An empirical evaluation is also performed to study the impact of the different parameters of the model.
@cite_3 propose a bilateral negotiation model where agents are allowed to propose up to @math different offers at each negotiation round. Offers are proposed from the current iso-utility curve according to a similarity mechanism that selects the most similar offer to the last offer received from the opponent. The selected similarity heuristic is the Euclidean distance since it is general and does not require domain-specific knowledge and information regarding the opponent's utility function. Results showed that the strategy is capable of reaching agreements that are very close to the Pareto Frontier. Sanchez- @cite_22 proposed an enhancement for this strategy in environments where computational resources are very limited and utility functions are complex. It relies on genetic algorithms to sample offers that are interesting for the agent itself and creates new offers during the negotiation process that are interesting for both parties. Results showed that the model is capable of obtaining statistically equivalent results to similar models that had the full iso-utility curve sampled, while being computationally more tractable.
@cite_22 @cite_3
1523459335 2039710942 2110872636 1542025417
This paper presents a decentralized model that allows self-interested agents to reach "win-win" agreements in a multi-attribute negotiation. The model is based on an alternating-offer protocol. In each period, the proposing agent is allowed to make a limited number of offers. The responding agent can select the best out of these offers. In the case of rejection, agents exchange their roles and the negotiation proceeds to the next period. To make counteroffers, an agent first uses the heuristic of choosing the offer on an indifference (or "iso-utility") curve surface that is closest to the best offer made by the opponent in the previous period, and then taking this offer as the seed, chooses several other offers randomly in a specified neighborhood of this seed offer. Experimental analysis shows agents can reach near Pareto optimal agreements in quite general situations following the model where agents may have complex preferences on the attributes and incomplete information. This model does not require the presence of a mediator. Ambient Intelligence aims to offer personalized services and easier ways of interaction between people and systems. Since several users and systems may coexist in these environments, it is quite possible that entities with opposing preferences need to cooperate to reach their respective goals. Automated negotiation is pointed as one of the mechanisms that may provide a solution to this kind of problems. In this article, a multi-issue bilateral bargaining model for Ambient Intelligence domains is presented where it is assumed that agents have computational bounded resources and do not know their opponents' preferences. The main goal of this work is to provide negotiation models that obtain efficient agreements while maintaining the computational cost low. A niching genetic algorithm is used before the negotiation process to sample one's own utility function (self-sampling). During the negotiation process, genetic operators are applied over the opponent's and one's own offers in order to sample new offers that are interesting for both parties. Results show that the proposed model is capable of outperforming similarity heuristics which only sample before the negotiation process and of obtaining similar results to similarity heuristics which have access to all of the possible offers. Automated negotiation is a key form of interaction in systems that are composed of multiple autonomous agents. The aim of such interactions is to reach agreements through an iterative process of making offers. The content of such proposals are, however, a function of the strategy of the agents. Here we present a strategy called the trade-off strategy where multiple negotiation decision variables are traded-off against one another (e.g., paying a higher price in order to obtain an earlier delivery date or waiting longer in order to obtain a higher quality service). Such a strategy is commonly known to increase the social welfare of agents. Yet, to date, most computational work in this area has ignored the issue of trade-offs, instead aiming to increase social welfare through mechanism design. The aim of this paper is to develop a heuristic computational model of the trade-off strategy and show that it can lead to an increased social welfare of the system. A novel linear algorithm is presented that enables software agents to make trade-offs for multi-dimensional goods for the problem of distributed resource allocation. Our algorithm is motivated by a number of real-world negotiation applications that we have developed and can operate in the presence of varying degrees of uncertainty. Moreover, we show that on average the total time used by the algorithm is linearly proportional to the number of negotiation issues under consideration. This formal analysis is complemented by an empirical evaluation that highlights the operational effectiveness of the algorithm in a range of negotiation scenarios. The algorithm itself operates by using the notion of fuzzy similarity to approximate the preference structure of the other negotiator and then uses a hill-climbing technique to explore the space of possible trade-offs for the one that is most likely to be acceptable.  2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. We study the problem of computing maximin share allocations, a recently introduced fairness notion. Given a set of n agents and a set of goods, the maximin share of an agent is the best she can guarantee to herself, if she is allowed to partition the goods in any way she prefers, into n bundles, and then receive her least desirable bundle. The objective then is to find a partition, where each agent is guaranteed her maximin share. Such allocations do not always exist, hence we resort to approximation algorithms. Our main result is a 2 3-approximation that runs in polynomial time for any number of agents and goods. This improves upon the algorithm of Procaccia and Wang (2014), which is also a 2 3-approximation but runs in polynomial time only for a constant number of agents. To achieve this, we redesign certain parts of the algorithm in Procaccia and Wang (2014), exploiting the construction of carefully selected matchings in a bipartite graph representation of the problem. Furthermore, motivated by the apparent difficulty in establishing lower bounds, we undertake a probabilistic analysis. We prove that in randomly generated instances, maximin share allocations exist with high probability. This can be seen as a justification of previously reported experimental evidence. Finally, we provide further positive results for two special cases arising from previous works. The first is the intriguing case of three agents, where we provide an improved 7 8-approximation. The second case is when all item values belong to 0, 1, 2 , where we obtain an exact algorithm.