Full Text:   <1544>

Summary:  <1453>

CLC number: TP181; O22

On-line Access: 2016-04-05

Received: 2015-10-18

Revision Accepted: 2016-02-20

Crosschecked: 2016-03-21

Cited: 4

Clicked: 3811

Citations:  Bibtex RefMan EndNote GB/T7714

 ORCID:

João Carneiro

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1430-5465

-   Go to

Article info.
Open peer comments

Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering  2016 Vol.17 No.4 P.296-308

http://doi.org/10.1631/FITEE.1500344


Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios


Author(s):  João Carneiro, Diogo Martinho, Goreti Marreiros, Paulo Novais

Affiliation(s):  GECAD-Knowledge Engineering and Decision Support Group, Institute of Engineering, Polytechnic of Porto, Porto 4200-072, Portugal; more

Corresponding email(s):   jomrc@isep.ipp.pt

Key Words:  Group decision support systems, Ubiquitous computing, Automatic negotiation, Social networks, Multi-agent systems


João Carneiro, Diogo Martinho, Goreti Marreiros, Paulo Novais. Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios[J]. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 2016, 17(4): 296-308.

@article{title="Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios",
author="João Carneiro, Diogo Martinho, Goreti Marreiros, Paulo Novais",
journal="Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering",
volume="17",
number="4",
pages="296-308",
year="2016",
publisher="Zhejiang University Press & Springer",
doi="10.1631/FITEE.1500344"
}

%0 Journal Article
%T Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios
%A João Carneiro
%A Diogo Martinho
%A Goreti Marreiros
%A Paulo Novais
%J Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering
%V 17
%N 4
%P 296-308
%@ 2095-9184
%D 2016
%I Zhejiang University Press & Springer
%DOI 10.1631/FITEE.1500344

TY - JOUR
T1 - Intelligent negotiation model for ubiquitous group decision scenarios
A1 - João Carneiro
A1 - Diogo Martinho
A1 - Goreti Marreiros
A1 - Paulo Novais
J0 - Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering
VL - 17
IS - 4
SP - 296
EP - 308
%@ 2095-9184
Y1 - 2016
PB - Zhejiang University Press & Springer
ER -
DOI - 10.1631/FITEE.1500344


Abstract: 
Supporting group decision-making in ubiquitous contexts is a complex task that must deal with a large amount of factors to succeed. Here we propose an approach for an intelligent negotiation model to support the group decision-making process specifically designed for ubiquitous contexts. Our approach can be used by researchers that intend to include arguments, complex algorithms, and agents’ modeling in a negotiation model. It uses a social networking logic due to the type of communication employed by the agents and it intends to support the ubiquitous group decision-making process in a similar way to the real process, which simultaneously preserves the amount and quality of intelligence generated in face-to-face meetings. We propose a new look into this problem by considering and defining strategies to deal with important points such as the type of attributes in the multi-criterion problems, agents’ reasoning, and intelligent dialogues.

应用于普适群体决策的智能谈判模型

目的:开发一种应用于普适情形的群体(对话)决策模型。
创新点:遵循社交网络逻辑,提出了一种贴近真实情景的智能群体决策的理论模型,更好地支持普通背景的群体决策过程。
方法:首先分析了现有的群体决策支持系统(GDSS)模型,并指出现有模型的缺陷:极少能够商业应用且难以反映决策过程的自然规律;而有较大发展空间的基于辩论的谈判模型的研究成果甚少。然后提出了一种更贴近真实情景的普适群体决策模型。该模型基于社交网络中的交流逻辑,重新定义了多标准问题的属性以及智能体推理与对话等,综合考虑了群体目标和群体中个人目标。所提出的群体谈判模型允许研究人员进一步基于自己的算法、论点以及智能体模型进行扩展。运用案例分析论证了模型的可行性。
结论:本文提出的理论模型能够支持普适的群体决策过程,保证面对面交流的质量。

关键词:群体决策支持系统;普适计算;自动谈判;社交网络

Darkslateblue:Affiliate; Royal Blue:Author; Turquoise:Article

Reference

[1]Allen, J., Blaylock, N., Ferguson, G., 2002. A problem solving model for collaborative agents. Proc. 1st Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.774-781.

[2]Alonso, S., Herrera-Viedma, E., Chiclana, F., et al., 2010. A web based consensus support system for group decision making problems and incomplete preferences. Inform. Sci., 180(23):4477-4495.

[3]Bashiri, M., Hosseininezhad, S.J., 2009. A fuzzy group decision support system for multifacility location problems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 42(5):533-543.

[4]Bonzon, E., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P., 2012. Knowing each other in argumentation-based negotiation. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.1413-1414.

[5]Burke, K., Chidambaram, L., 2003. Mini-track: distributed group support systems (DGSS). Proc. 36th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on Systems Science, p.16.

[6]Carneiro, J., Santos, R., Marreiros, G., et al., 2014a. Overcoming the lack of human-interaction in ubiquitous group decision support systems. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett., 49:116-124. http://onlinepresent.org/proceedings/vol49_2014/24.pdf

[7]Carneiro, J., Santos, R., Marreiros, G., et al., 2014b. Understanding decision quality through satisfaction. Int. Conf. on Practical Applications of Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, p.368-377.

[8]Carneiro, J., Martinho, D., Marreiros, G., et al., 2015. Individual definition of multi-criteria problems in ubiquitous GDSS. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett., 97:99-106. http://onlinepresent.org/proceedings/vol97_2015/17.pdf

[9]Dean, J.W., Sharfman, M.P., 1996. Does decision process matter A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Acad. Manag. J., 39(2):368-392.

[10]de Melo, C.M., Carnevale, P., Gratch, J., 2011. The effect of expression of anger and happiness in computer agents on negotiations with humans. 10th Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.937-944.

[11]Dennis, A.R., 1996. Information exchange and use in small group decision making. Small Group Res., 27(4):532-550.

[12]El-Sisi, A.B., Mousa, H.M., 2012 Argumentation based negotiation in multiagent system. 7th Int. Conf. on Computer Engineering & Systems, p.261-266.

[13]Fan, X.Y., Toni, F., 2014. Decision making with assumption-based argumentation. 2nd Int. Workshop on Theory and Applications of Formal Argumentation, p.127-142.

[14]Fan, X.Y., Toni, F., Mocanu, A., et al., 2014. Dialogical two-agent decision making with assumption-based argumentation. Proc. Int. Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, p.533-540.

[15]Gorsevski, P.V., Cathcart, S.C., Mirzaei, G., et al., 2013. A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio. Energy Pol., 55:374-385.

[16]Guo, C.Z., Guo, K., Lin, W., et al., 2005. The research on the software architecture of negotiatory synthetical forecasting GDSS based on J2EE. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, p.27-32.

[17]Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L., 1997. A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst., 88(1):31-49.

[18]Huang, P., Sycara, K.A., 2002. A computational model for online agent negotiation. Proc. 35th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, p.438-444.

[19]Huber, G.P., 1984. Issues in the design of group decision support sytems. MIS Quart., 8(3):195-204.

[20]Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M., 1998. Applications of intelligent agents. In: Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M. (Eds.), Agent Technology. Springer, Berlin, p.3-28.

[21]Kakas, A., Moraitis, P., 2006. Adaptive agent negotiation via argumentation. Proc. 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, p.384-391.

[22]Kar, A.K., 2014. Revisiting the supplier selection problem: an integrated approach for group decision support. Expert Syst. Appl., 41(6):2762-2771.

[23]Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D., 1998. A group decision and negotiation support system for argumentation based reasoning. 4th Pacific Rim Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, p.188-205.

[24]Karacapilidis, N., Papadias, D., 2001. Computer supported argumentation and collaborative decision making: the HERMES system. Inform. Syst., 26(4):259-277.

[25]Karunatillake, N.C., Jennings, N.R., 2005. Is it worth arguing 1st Int. Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, p.234-250.

[26]Kraus, S., Sycara, K., Evenchik, A., 1998. Reaching agreements through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artif. Intell., 104(1-2):1-69.

[27]Marey, O., Bentahar, J., Asl, E.K., et al., 2014. Agents’ uncertainty in argumentation-based negotiation: classification and implementation. Proc. Comput. Sci., 32:61-68.

[28]Marreiros, G., Santos, R., Ramos, C., et al., 2010. Context aware emotional model for group decision making. IEEE Intell. Syst., 99:1541-1672.

[29]Maznevski, M.L., 1994. Understanding our differences: performance in decision-making groups with diverse members. Human Relat., 47(5):531-552.

[30]Moreno-Jiménez, J.M., Aguarón, J., Escobar, M.T., 2008. The core of consistency in AHP-group decision making. Group Dec. Negot., 17(3):249-265.

[31]Müller, J., 1996. The Design of Intelligent Agents: a Layered Approach. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

[32]Paul, S., Seetharaman, P., Ramamurthy, K., 2004. User satisfaction with system, decision process, and outcome in GDSS based meeting: an experimental investigation. Proc. 37th Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Sciences, p.37-46.

[33]Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., et al., 2003. Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 18(4):343-375.

[34]Rahwan, I., Sonenberg, L., Jennings, N.R., et al., 2007. Stratum: a methodology for designing heuristic agent negotiation strategies. Appl. Artif. Intell., 21(6):489-527.

[35]Ramchurn, S.D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., et al., 2007. Negotiating using rewards. Artif. Intell., 171(10-15):805-837.

[36]Reicher, S., Haslam, S.A., Hopkins, N., 2005. Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. Leadership Quart., 16(4):547-568.

[37]Rosaci, D., 2012. Trust measures for competitive agents. Knowl. Syst., 28:38-46.

[38]Santos, R., Marreiros, G., Ramos, C., et al., 2010. Using personality types to support argumentation. 6th Int. Workshop Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, p.292-304.

[39]Sierra, C., Jennings, N.R., Noriega, P., et al., 1998. A framework for argumentation-based negotiation. Proc. 4th Int. Workshop on Intelligent Agents IV, Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages, p.177-192.

[40]Smits, M.T., Postma, Th.J.B.M., Takkenberg, C.A.Th., et al., 1993. A GDSS methodology for personnel planning in rheumatology. Proc. IFIP TC8/WG8.3 Working Conf. on Decision Support in Public Administration, p.149-158.

[41]Sycara, K., Pannu, A., Williamson, M., et al., 1996. Distributed intelligent agents. IEEE Expert, 11(6):36-46.

[42]Tavana, M., Kennedy, D.T., Rappaport, J., et al., 1993. An AHP-Delphi group decision support system applied to conflict resolution in hiring decisions. J. Manag. Syst., 5(1):49-74.

[43]Walton, D., 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, USA.

[44]Wooldridge, M.J., 2000. Reasoning about Rational Agents. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.

[45]Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R., 1995. Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl. Eng. Rev., 10(2):115-152. http://dx.doi.or/10.1017/S0269888900008122

[46]Xu, Z.S., 2009. An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making. Comput. Ind. Eng., 56(4):1369-1374.

[47]Yen, J., Yin, J.W., Ioerger, T.R., et al., 2001. Cast: collaborative agents for simulating teamwork. 17th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, p.1135-1144.

[48]Zhang, G.Q., Ma, J., Lu, J., 2009. Emergency management evaluation by a fuzzy multi-criteria group decision support system. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 23(4):517-527.

Open peer comments: Debate/Discuss/Question/Opinion

<1>

Please provide your name, email address and a comment





Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE, 38 Zheda Road, Hangzhou 310027, China
Tel: +86-571-87952783; E-mail: cjzhang@zju.edu.cn
Copyright © 2000 - 2022 Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE