Under some circumstances, a group of individuals may need to negotiate together as a negotiation team against another party. Unlike bilateral negotiation between two individuals, this type of negotiations entails to adopt an intra-team strategy for negotiation teams in order to make team decisions and accordingly negotiate with the opponent. It is crucial to be able to negotiate successfully with heterogeneous opponents since opponents’ negotiation strategy and behavior may vary in an open environment. While one opponent might collaborate and concede over time, another may not be inclined to concede. This paper analyzes the performance of recently proposed intra-team strategies for negotiation teams against different categories of opponents: competitors, matchers, and conceders. Furthermore, it provides an extension of the negotiation tool Genius for negotiation teams in bilateral settings. Consequently, this work facilitates research in negotiation teams.
As far as we are concerned, only our previous works @cite_25 @cite_32 @cite_29 @cite_8 have considered negotiation teams in computational models. More specifically, the four different computational models introduced in this article are analyzed in different negotiation conditions when facing opponents governed by time tactics. However, the analysis does not include variability with respect to the strategy carried out by the opponent like the experiments carried out in this present article.
@cite_29 @cite_32 @cite_25 @cite_8
2303547534 2017435659 2113420304 2110872636
A computational prototype of negotiation behavior is presented where the following occurs: (1) agents employ different concession matching tactics; (2) agents are unaware of opponent preferences; (3) agents incur a cost for delaying settlements; (4) agents vary in terms of goal difficulty and initial offer magnitude; and (5) demands and counter-offers are made and evaluated based on the opponent's degree of concession matching. This research explores the impact of the interaction of different agent behaviors on the negotiation process and the outcome of the negotiation. Simulation experiments show that the prototype is able to manifest fundamental patterns and confirms the effectiveness of classical negotiation and mediation strategies, such as ambitious goals and aggressive concession matching tactics. The model reveals some counterintuitive patterns that may shed a new perspective on the effects of time constraints and information availability. 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. It has been documented in the social sciences that cultural factors affect how people negotiate and behave in negotiations. Despite the importance of culture in the business world and politics, there is a lack of computational models that help to analyze how cultural factors affect negotiation. Moreover, while many negotiations take place between teams, there is a dearth of computational models for team negotiations. In this paper we present the first attempt to provide a computational model which takes into account cultural factors in a team negotiation setting. The model considers how two important cultural dimensions, power distance and individualism collectivism, affect team negotiation dynamics and negotiation outcomes. We conducted experiments in high low intra-team conflict scenarios. The results are compatible with social sciences findings from team decision making. 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.