single-jc.php

JACIII Vol.15 No.1 pp. 34-40
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2011.p0034
(2011)

Paper:

Common Testbed Generating Tool Based on XML for Multiple Interdependent Issues Negotiation Problems

Katsuhide Fujita*,**, Takayuki Ito*,**, and Mark Klein**

*Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 466-8555, Japan

**Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 5 Cambridge Center, Cambridge 02139, USA

Received:
May 31, 2010
Accepted:
September 13, 2010
Published:
January 20, 2011
Keywords:
multi-issue negotiation, non-linear utility
Abstract

Multiple interdependent issues negotiations have been widely studied since most real-world negotiation involves multiple interdependent issues. Our work focuses on negotiation with multiple interdependent issues in which agent utility functions are nonlinear. In the field of multiple issue negotiations, there are no established common testbeds for evaluating protocols. In this paper, we propose a common testbed creating tool based on XML that mainly covers the utility functions based on cube-constraints and cone-constraints. First, we propose a testbed generating tool that inputs configuration data and outputs XML formatted files that represent agent utility spaces. The current tool can produce four types of utility spaces: Random, A Single Hill, Two-Hills, and SeveralHills. These types are observed in real negotiation settings. Also we define the agent’s utility space information based on XML formats. By defining the testbed data as XMLs, users can easily read the files and change the data structure.

Cite this article as:
Katsuhide Fujita, Takayuki Ito, and Mark Klein, “Common Testbed Generating Tool Based on XML for Multiple Interdependent Issues Negotiation Problems,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.15, No.1, pp. 34-40, 2011.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] T. Bosse and C. M. Jonker, “Human vs. Computer Behaviour in Multi-Issue Negotiation,” In Proc. of 1st Int.Workshop on Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems (RRS-2005), pp. 11-24, 2005.
  2. [2] P. Faratin, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings, “Using Similarity Criteria to Make Issue Trade-offs in Automated Negotiations,” In Artificial Intelligence, Vol.142, pp. 205-237, 2002.
  3. [3] K. Fujita, T. Ito, and M. Klein, “Preliminary Result on Secure Protocols for Multiple Issue Negotiation Problems,” In Proc. of The 11th Pacific Rim Int. Conf. on Multi-Agents (PRIMA-2008), 2008.
  4. [4] K. Fujita, T. Ito, and M. Klein, “A representative-based multi-round protocol for multi-issue negotiations,” In Proc. of The 7th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2008), 2008.
  5. [5] T. Ito, H. Hattori, and M. Klein, “Multi-issue Negotiation Protocol for Agents: Exploring Nonlinear Utility Spaces,” In Proc. of 20th Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2007), pp. 1347-1352, 2007.
  6. [6] W3C. “Document Object Model (DOM) Technical Reports.”
    http://www.w3.org/DOM/DOMTR
  7. [7] J. R. V. I. Marsa-Maestre, M. A. Lopez-Carmona, and E. d. l. Hoz, “Effective bidding and deal identification for negotiations in highly nonlinear scenarios,” In Proc. of The 8th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2009), 2009.
  8. [8] S. J. Russell and P. Norvig, “Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach,” Prentice Hall, 2002.
  9. [9] S. S. Fatima, M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, “Optimal Negotiation of Multiple Issues in Incomplete Information Settings,” In Proc. of Third Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agent and Multi-Agent Systems, (AAMAS-2004), pp. 1080-1087, 2004.
  10. [10] R. J. Lin and S. T. Chou, “Bilateral Multi-Issue Negotiations in a Dynamic Environment,” In Proc. of AMEC-2003, 2003.
  11. [11] M. Barbuceanu and W.-K. Lo, “Multi-attribute Utility Theoretic Negotiation for Electronic Commerce,” In Proc. of AMEC-2000, pp. 15-30, 2000.
  12. [12] M. Klein, P. Faratin, H. Sayama, and Y. Bar-Yam, “Negotiating Complex Contracts,” Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol.12, No.2, pp. 58-73, 2003.
  13. [13] G. Lai, C. Li, and K. Sycara, “A general model for pareto optimal multi-attribute negotiations,” In Proc. of The 2nd Int. Workshop on Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems (RRS-2006), 2006.
  14. [14] G. Lai, K. Sycara, and C. Li, “A decentralized model for multiattribute negotiations with incomplete information and general utility functions,” In Proc. of The 2nd Int. Workshop on Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems (RRS-2006), 2006.
  15. [15] V. Robu, D. J. A. Somefun, and J. L. Poutre, “Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs,” In Proc. of the 4th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 2005), 2005.
  16. [16] V. Robu and H. L. Poutre, “Retrieving the Structure of Utility Graphs Used in Multi-Item Negotiation through Collaborative Filtering of Aggregate Buyer Preferences,” In Proc. of The 2nd Int. Workshop on Rational, Robust, and Secure Negotiations in Multi-Agent Systems (RRS-2006), 2006.
  17. [17] S. S. Fatima, M.Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings, “Approximate and online multi-issue negotiation,” In Proc. of th 6th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-2007), pp. 947-954, 2007.
  18. [18] J. Shew and K. Larson, “The Blind Leading the Blind: A Third-Party Model for Bilateral Multi-issue Negotiations under Incomplete Information,” In Proc. of The 1st Int. Workshop on Agentbased Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN-2008), 2008.
  19. [19] K. Hindriks, C. Jonker, and D. Tykhonov, “Avoiding Approximation Errors in Multi-Issue Negotiation with Issue Dependencies,” In Proc. of The 1st Int. Workshop on Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiations (ACAN-2008), 2008.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Sep. 21, 2021