Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T02:58:58.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

Shaheen Fatima
Affiliation:
Loughborough University
Sarit Kraus
Affiliation:
Bar-Ilan University, Israel
Michael Wooldridge
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbeel, P. and A., Ng. Apprenticeship learning via inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-2004), Banff, AB, Canada, 2004. (189)Google Scholar
Adams, G., G., Rausser, and L., Simon. Modelling multilateral negotiations: An application to California water policy. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30:97–111, 1996. (216)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aghion, P. and P., Bolton. Contracts as a barrier to entry. American Economic Review, 77:388–401, 1987. (155)Google Scholar
Alam, M., A., Rogers, and S., Ramchurn. Interdependent multi-issue negotiation for energy exchange In remote communities. In. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2013), pages 25–31, Bellevue, WA, 2013. (221)Google Scholar
Allen, J. F., J., Hendler, and A., Tat. (eds). Readings In Planning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1990. (61, 62)
Amir, O., B., Grosz, E., Law, and R., Stern. Collaborative health care plan support. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2013), pages 793–796, St Paul, MN, 2013. (176)Google Scholar
An, B., N., Gatti, and V., Lesser. Extending alternating-offers bargaining In one-to-many and many-to-many settings. In. Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 423–126, Milan, Italy, 2009. (164)Google Scholar
Andersson, M. and T., Sandholm. Leveled commitment contracting among myopic individually rational agents. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98), pages 26–33, Paris, France, 1998. (148)Google Scholar
Andersson, M. and T., Sandholm. Time-quality tradeoffs In reallocative negotiation with combinatorial contract types. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), pages 3–10, Orlando, FL, 1999. (148)Google Scholar
Ariely, D.Predictably Irrational. Harper Collins: New York, 2008. (1, 12, 176, 191)Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J.Social Choice and Individual Values. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1951. (227, 232)Google Scholar
Arrow, K.The economics of agency. In J., Pratt and R., Zeckhausse. (eds), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, pages 37–51. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1985. (147)Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J., A. K., Sen, and K., Suzumur. (eds). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, 2002. (32, 232)
Auctionline. http://www.auctionline.com. (210)
Aumann, Y., Y., Dombb, and A., Hassidim. Computing socially-efficient cake divisions. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2013), pages 343–350, St Paul, MN, 2013. (232)Google Scholar
Ausiello, G., P., Crescenzi, G., Gambosi, V., Kann, A., Marchetti-Spaccamela, and M., Protasi. Complexity and Approximation. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1999. (115)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R.The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books: New York, 1984. (20)Google Scholar
Azaria, A., Y., Aumann, and S., Kraus. Automated strategies for determining rewards for human work. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2012), Toronto, Canada, 2012a. (179, 218)Google Scholar
Azaria, A., Z., Rabinovich, S., Kraus, C., Goldman, and Y., Gal. Strategic advice provision In repeated human-agent interactions. Institute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, 1500:20742, 2012b. (187)Google Scholar
Azaria, A., Z., Rabinovich, S., Kraus, C., Goldman, and O., Tsimhoni. Giving advice to people In path selection problems. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2012), pages 459–166, Valencia, Spain, 2012c. (187)Google Scholar
Azoulay-Schwartz, R. and D., Dor-Shiffer. The impact of available information on negotiation results. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 60(3&4) 311–340, 2010. (95)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azoulay-Schwartz, R. and S., Kraus. Negotiation on data allocation In multi-agent environments. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 5(2):123–172, 2002. (72)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baarslag, T., K., Fujita, E., Gerding, K., Hindriks, T., Ito, N., Jennings, C., Jonker, S., Kraus, R., Lin, V., Robu, and C., Williams. Evaluating practical negotiating agents: Results and analysis of the 2011 international competition. Artificial Intelligence, 198:73–103, 2013a. (168, 174)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baarslag, T., K., Hindriks, and C., Jonker. Effective acceptance conditions In real-time automated negotiation. Decision Support Systems, 60:68–77, 2013b. (168)Google Scholar
Bac, M. and H., Raff. Issue-by-issue negotiations: The role of information and time preference. Games and Economic Behavior, 13:125–134, 1996. (119, 137)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiman, S. and J., Demski. Economically optimal performance evaluation and control systems. Journal of Accounting Research, 18:184–220, 1980. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, A. and A., Beggs. Efficiency In hierarchies: Implementing the first-best solution by sequential actions. The RAND Journal of Economics, 20(4):637–645, 1989. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, P., M. W. A., Caminada, and M., Giacomin. An introduction to argumentation semantics. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 26(4):365–110, 2011. (230)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholdi, J. J., C. A., Tovey, and M. A., Trick. The computational difficulty of manipulating an election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6:227–241, 1989. (229, 232)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassi, A.Voting systems and strategic manipulation: An experimental study. Technical report, mimeo, 2008. (232)Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H. and M. A., Neale. Negotiato rationality and negotiator cognition: The interactive roles of prescriptive and descriptive research. In H. P., Young (ed.), Negotiation Analysis, pages 109–130. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 1992. (176)Google Scholar
Berry, P., C., Albright, E., Bowring, K., Conley, K., Nitz, J., Pearce, B., Peintner, S., Saadati, M., Tambe, T., Uribe, and N., Yorke-Smith. Conflict negotiation among personal calendar agents. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2006), pages 1467–1468, Hakodate, Japan, 2006. (218)Google Scholar
Besnard, P. and A., Hunter. A logic-based theory of deductive arguments. Artificial Intelligence, 128:203–235, 2001. (230)Google Scholar
Besnard, P. and A., Hunter. Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2008. (6, 232)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigham, J. and L., Du. Cooperative negotiation In a multi-agent system for real-time load balancing of a mobile cellular network. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-03), pages 568–575, Columbia University, NY, 2003. (215)Google Scholar
Binmore, K.Bargaining and coalitions. In A., Roth (ed.), Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1985. (192)Google Scholar
Binmore, K.Fun and Games: A Text on Game Theory. D. C. Heath and Company: Lexington, MA, 1992. (17)Google Scholar
Binmore, K.Does Game Theory Work?The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2007. (9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K. and P., Dasgupt. (eds). The Economics of Bargaining. Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1987. (192)
Binmore, K., A., Rubinstein, and A., Wolinsky. The Nash bargaining solution In economic modeling. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(2):176–188, 1986. (197)
Bishop, C.Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2006. (170)Google Scholar
Bitan, M., Y., Gal, S., Kraus, E., Dokov, and A., Azaria. Social rankings In human-computer committees. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2013), Bellevue, WA, 2013. (232)Google Scholar
Boutilier, C., R., Brafman, C., Domshlak, H., Hoos, and D., Poole. CP-Nets: A tool for representing and reasoning with conditional ceteris paribus preference statements. Journal of AI Research, 21:135–191, 2004. (223)Google Scholar
Brams, S. J. and A. D., Taylor. Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1996. (232)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, F., V., Conitzer, U., Endriss, J., Lang, and A., Procacci. (eds). Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2014. In press. (229, 232)Google Scholar
Brzostowski, J. and R., Kowalczyk. Predicting partner's behaviour In agent negotiation. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2006), pages 355–361, Hakodate, Japan, 2006. (165)Google Scholar
Buhmann, M.Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2003. (170)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulow, J. and P., Klemperer. Auctions versus negotiations. American Economic Review, 86(1):180–194, 1996. (156)Google Scholar
Busch, L. A. and I. J., Horstman. Bargainin. frictions, bargaining procedures and implied costs In multiple-issue bargaining. Economica, 64:669–680, 1997. (137, 138)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussmann, S., N. R., Jennings, and M., Wooldridge. Multiagent Systems for Manufacturing Control. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2004. (72)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caillaud, B., R. Guisnerie, P. Rey, and J., Tirole. Government intervention In production and incentives theory: A review of recent contributions. The RAND Journal of Economics, 19(1):1–26, 1988. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D.E., an. J., S. Kelly., Impossibilit. theorems In the Arrovian framework., I. K., J. Arrow, A.K., Sen, and K., Suzumur. (eds), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare Volume 1. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.: Amsterdam, 2002. (226)
Carraro, C., C., Marchiori, and A., Sgobbi. Negotiating on water: Insights from non-cooperative bargaining theory. Environment and Development Economics, 12:329–349, 2007. (217)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, S. and J., Yang. The unique perfect equilibrium of an n-person bargaining game. Economic Letters, 28:221–223, 1988. (140, 141)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chae, S. and J., Yang. An n-person pure bargaining game. Journal of Economic Theory, 62:86–102, 1994. (140, 141)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalamish, M. and S., Kraus. AutoMed – an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 24(3):536–564, 2012. (205, 219)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, K. and C., Lee. Bargaining and search with incomplete information about outside options. Games and Economic Behavior, 22(2):203–237, 1998. (95)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, K. and L., Samuelson. Bargaining with two-sided incomplete information: An infinite horizon model with alternating offers. Review of Economic Studies, 54(2):175–192, 1987. (87)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, K. and L., Samuelson. Bargaining with two-sided incomplete information: The unrestricted offers case. Operations Research, 36:605–618, 1988. (87)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chatterjee, K. and L., Samuelson. Perfect equilibria In simultaneous offers bargaining. International Journal of Game Theory, 19(3):237–267, 1990. (94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, A. and P., Maes. Kasbah: An agent marketplace for buying and selling goods. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM-96), pages 75–90, London, 1996. (209)Google Scholar
Chen, X. and X., Deng. Settling the complexity of two-player Nash equilibrium. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2006), Berkeley, CA, 2006. (27)Google Scholar
Chervenak, A., I., Foster, C., Kesselman, and C., Salisbury. The data grid: Towards an architecture for the distributed management and analysis of large scientific data sets. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23(3):187–200, 2000. (210)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevaleyre, Y., P. E., Dunne, U., Endriss, J., Lang, M., Lemaitre, N., Maudet, J., Padget, S., Phelps, J. A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, and P., Sousa. Issues In multiagent resource allocation. Informatica, 30:3–31, 2006. (15)Google Scholar
Clerc, M. and J., Kennedy. Evolution strategies: A comprehensive introduction. Natural Computing, 1:3–52, 2002a. (171)Google Scholar
Clerc, M. and J., Kennedy. The particle swarm: Explosion, stability, and convergence In multidimensional complex space. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Compu-tation, 6(1):58–73, 2002b. (171)Google Scholar
Coehoorn, R. and N. R., Jennings. Learning an opponent's preferences to make effective multi-issue negotiation tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 59–98, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004. (163)Google Scholar
Collins, J., R., Arunachalam, N., Sadeh, J., Eriksson, N., Finne, and S., Janson. The supply chain management game for the 2006 trading agent competition. Technical Report CMU-ISRI-05-132, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, 2005. (164, 172, 174)
Conitzer, V. and T., Sandholm. Complexity results about Nash equilibria. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03), pages 765–771, Acapulco, Mexico, 2003. (27)Google Scholar
Conitzer, V. and T., Sandholm. New complexity results about Nash equilibria. Games and Economic Behaviour, 63(2):621–641, 2008. (27)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormen, T. H., C. E., Leiserson, R. L., Rivest, and C., Stein. An Introduction to Algorithms. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2003. (102)Google Scholar
Cramton, P.Bargaining with incomplete information: An infinite horizon model with two-sided uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 51:579–593, 1984. (95)
Cramton, P.Strategic delay In bargaining with two-sided uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies, 59:205–225, 1992. (95)
Cramton, P., Y., Shoham, and R., Steinber. (eds). Combinatorial Auctions. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2006. (145, 156)
Daskalakis, C., P. W., Goldberg, and C. H., Papadimitriou. The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory ofComputing (STOC-2006), Seattle, WA, 2006. (27)Google Scholar
Daskalakis, C., P. W., Goldberg, and C. H., Papadimitriou. Th complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. Communications of the ACM, 52(2):89–97, 2009. (27)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. and R. G., Smith. Negotiation as a metaphor for distributed problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 20(1):63–109, 1983. (15, 145)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Melo, C., P., Carnevale, and J., Gratch. The effect of expression of anger and happiness In computer agents on negotiations with humans. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2011), Taipei, Taiwan, 2011. (190)Google Scholar
DeGroot, M.Probability and Statistics. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, 1989. (49)Google Scholar
Dekel, E.Simultaneous offers and the inefficiency of bargaining: A two period example. Journal of Economic Theory, 50(2): 300–308, 1990. (94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, A. and S., Skeath. Games of Strategy (Second Edition). W. W. Norton & Co., Inc.: New York, 2004. (210)Google Scholar
Dung, P. M.On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role In nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77:321–357, 1995. (230, 231)
Dunne, P. E.Extremal behaviour In multiagent contract negotiation. Journal of AI Research, 23:41–78, 2005. (155)Google Scholar
Dunne, P. E., M., Wooldridge, and M., Laurence. The complexity of contract negotiation. Artificial Intelligence, 164(1&2):23–46, 2005. (155, 156)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durenard, E.Professional Automated Trading: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2013. (176)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutta, B. and L., Gevers. On majority rules and perfect equilibrium allocations of a shrinking cake. Technical Report 43, cahiers de la Faculte des Sciences Economiques et Socialies de Namur, 1981. (141)Google Scholar
Echenique, F.A theory of stability In many-to-many matching markets. Theoretical Economics, 1:233–273, 2006. (150)Google Scholar
Ehtamo, H., R., Hämäläinen, P., Heiskanen, J., Teich, M., Verkama, and S., Zionts. Generating Pareto solutions In a two-party setting: Constraint proposals method. Management Science, 45(12):1697–1709, 1999. (166)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkind, E. and S. S., Fatima. Maximizing revenue In sequential auctions. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics, volume 4858 of Lecture Notes In Computer Science, pages 491–502. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2007. (144)Google Scholar
Endriss, U., N., Maudet, F., Sadri, and F., Toni. On optimal outcomes of negotiations over resources. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-03), pages 177–184, Columbia University, New York, 2003. (156)Google Scholar
Erev, I. and A. E, Roth. Predicting how people play games: Reinforcement learning In experimental games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria. American Economic Review, 88(4):848–881, 1998. (176)Google Scholar
Faratin, P., C., Sierra, and N. R., Jennings. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. International Journal of Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 24:3–4, 1998. (158, 162)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faratin, P., C., Sierra, and N. R., Jennings. Using similarity criteria to make trade-offs In automated negotiations. Artificial Intelligence, 142(2):205–237, 2002. (163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatima, S. S.A., Kattan. Evolving optimal agendas for package deal negotiation. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2011), pages 505–512, Dublin, Ireland, July 2011. (169)Google Scholar
Fatima, S. S. and M., Wooldridge. Adaptive task and resource allocation In multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents (Agents 2001), pages 537–544, Montreal, Canada, 2001. (211)Google Scholar
Fatima, S. S., M., Wooldridge, and N. R., Jennings. An agenda based framework for multi-issue negotiation. Artificial Intelligence, 152(1):1–45, 2004. (137, 138)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fatima, S. S., M., Wooldridge, and N. R., Jennings. Multi-issue negotiation with deadlines. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 27:381–417, 2006. (112)Google Scholar
Fatima, S. S., M., Wooldridge, and N. R., Jennings. An analysis of feasible solutions for multi-issue negotiation involving non-linear utility functions. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pages 1041–1048, Budapest, Hungary, May 2009. (162)Google Scholar
Fershtman, C.Simultaneous moves multi-person continuous time concession game. Theory and Decision, 26:81–90, 1989. (94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fershtman, C.The importance of the agenda In bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 2:224–238, 1990. (119, 138)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fershtman, C.A note on multi-issue two-sided bargaining: Bilateral procedures. Games and Economic Behavior, 30:216–227, 2000. (97)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fershtman, C. and D., Seidman. Deadline effects and inefficient delay In bargaining with endogenous commitment. Journal of Economic Theory, 60(2):306–321, 1993. (94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ficici, S. and A., Pfeffer. Modeling how humans reason about others with partial in-formation. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2008), pages 315–322, Estoril, Portugal, 2008. (185, 188)Google Scholar
Fischhoff, B., B., Goitein, and Z., Shapira. Subjective expected utility: A model of decision-making. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(5):391–399, 1981. (187)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, R., T., Rietz, R. B., Myerson, and R., Weber. An experimental study of voting rules and polls In three-candidate elections. International Journal of Game Theory, 25(3):355–383, 1996. (232)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, I. and C., Kesselman. Computational grids. In I., Foster and C., Kesselma. (eds), The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, pages 15–52. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1999. (210)Google Scholar
Foster, I., C., Kesselman, and S., Tuecke. The anatomy of the grid: Enabling scalable virtual organisations. International Journal of Supercomputer Applications, 15(3):200–222, 2001. (210)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, I. et al. The Grid2003 production grid: Principles and practice. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing, pages 236–245, Honolulu, HI, 2004. (210)Google Scholar
Fudenberg, D. and J., Tirole. Sequential bargaining with incomplete information. Review of Economic Studies, 50:221–247, 1983. (87)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, D., D., Levine, and J., Tirole. Infinite horizon models of bargaining with one-sided incomplete information. In A., Roth (ed.), Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, pages 128–140. University of Cambridge Press: Cambridge, 1985. (87, 95)Google Scholar
Gal, Y.Reasoning about Rationality and Beliefs. PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2006. (188, 189)Google Scholar
Gal, Y. and A., Pfeffer. Modeling reciprocal behavior In human bilateral negotiation. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2007), Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2007. (188)Google Scholar
Gal, Y., B., Grosz, S., Kraus, A., Pfeffer, and S., Shieber. Agent decision-making In open mixed networks. Artificial Intelligence, 174(18):1460–1480, 2010. (165, 180, 186)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Y., S., Kraus, M., Gelfand, H., Khashan, and E., Salmon. An adaptive agent for negotiating with people In different cultures. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 3(1):8, 2011. (180)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, D. and L., Shapley. College admissions and stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1):9–15, 1967. (149, 151)Google Scholar
Garey, M. R. and D. S., Johnson. Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman: New York, 1979. (118)Google Scholar
Gatti, N., F., Giunta, and S., Marino. Alternating offers bargaining with one-sided uncertain deadlines: An efficient algorithm. Artificial Intelligence, 172:1119–1157, 2008. (87)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghallab, M., D., Nau, and P., Traverso. Automated Planning: Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 2004. (61, 62)Google Scholar
Gibbard, A.Manipulation of voting schemes: A general result. Econometrica, 41:587–601, 1973. (228)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. and D., Goldstein. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103(4):650, 1996. (191)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giunta, F. and N., Gatti. Bargaining over multiple issues In finite horizon alternating offers protocol. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 47:1251–271, 2006. (104)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, K., H., Teo, H., Wu, and K., Wei. Computer-supported negotiations: An experimental study of bargaining In electronic commerce. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First International Conference on Information Systems, pages 104–116, Brisbane, Australia, 2000. (205)Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Diaz, J., I., Garcia-Jurado, and M., Fiestras-Janeiro. An Introductory Course on Mathematical Game Theory. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010. (36)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodhue, R., G., Rausser, L.K., Simon, and S., Thoyer. Multilateral negotiations over the allocation of water resources: The strategic importance of bargaining structure. In A., Dinar, J., Albiac, and J., Sanchez-Soriano (eds), Game Theory for Policymaking In Natural Resources and the Environment, pages 132—154. Routledge Press: London, 2008. (216)Google Scholar
Grossman, S. and O., Hart. An analysis of the principal–agent problem. Econometrica, 51(1):7–45, 1983. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, B., S., Kraus, S., Talman, B., Stossel, and M., Havlin. The influence of social dependencies on decision-making: Initial investigations with a new game. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-04), pages 782–789, New York, 2004. (165, 180)Google Scholar
Gusfield, D. and R., Irving. The Stable Marriage Problem: Structure and Algorithms. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1989. (151)Google Scholar
Guttman, R. H., A. G., Moukas, and P., Maes. Agent-mediated electronic commerce: A survey. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(2):147–159, 1998. (209)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haile, P., A., Hortaçsu, and G., Kosenok. On the empirical content of quantal response equilibrium. The American Economic Review, 98(1): 180–200, 2008. (187)Google Scholar
Haim, G., Y., Gal, M., Gelfand, and S., Kraus. A cultural sensitive agent for human-computer negotiation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2012), pages 451–458, Valencia, Spain, 2012. (184)Google Scholar
Haller, H.Non-cooperative bargaining of n ≥ 3 players. Economic Letters, 22:11–13, 1986. (204)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. and A., Raviv. Some results on incentive contracts with applications to education and employment, health insurance, and law enforcement. The American Economic Review, 68(1):20–30, 1978. (147)Google ScholarPubMed
Harsanyi, J. C.Approaches to the bargaining problem before and after the theory of games: A critical discussion of Zeuthen's, Hicks', and Nash's theories. Econometrica, 24(2):144–1, 1956. (205)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C.Games of incomplete information played by Bayesian players–Part I. Management Science, 14:159–182, 1967. (86, 87)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C.Games of incomplete information played by Bayesian players–Part II. Management Science, 14:3203–334, 1968. (87)Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium In Games and Social Situations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1977. (21, 87)Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. and R., Selten. A generalized Nash solution for two-person bargaining games with incomplete information. Management Science, 18(5):80–106, 1972. (87, 199)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T., R., Tibshirani, and J., Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2009. (187)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, M., A., Rogers, X., Luo, and N. R., Jennings. Designing a successful trading agentfor supply chain management. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2006), pages 1159–1166, Hakodate, Japan, 2006. (164)Google Scholar
Herrero, M.A strategic bargaining approach to market institutions. PhD thesis, London School of Economics, London, 1985. (204)Google Scholar
Hindriks, K. and C., Jonker. Creating human–machine synergy In negotiation support systems: Towards the pocket negotiator. In Proceedings of the First ACM International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models In Negotiation, pages 47–54, New York, 2009. (223)Google Scholar
Hindriks, K. and D., Tykhonov. Opponent modelling In automated multi-issue negotiation using Bayesian learning. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2008), pages 331–338, Estoril, Portugal, 2008. (165)Google Scholar
Hindriks, K., C., Jonker, and D., Tykhonov. Effective acceptance conditions In real-time automated negotiation. In IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology, pages 439–444, Milan, Italy, 2009. (165)Google Scholar
Hindriks, K., C., Jonker, and D., Tykhonov. Eliminating issue dependencies In complex negotiation domains. Multiagent and Grid Systems, 6:477–501, 2010. (162)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshleifer, J. and J., Riley. The Analysis of Uncertainty and Information. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, J. and R., Zeckhauser. Algorithmic wage negotiations: Applications to paid crowdsourcing. In Proceedings ofCrowdConf, San Francisco, CA, 2010. (179)Google Scholar
Hossain, S.Selecting negotiation strategies for meeting scheduling using a model based approach. Procedia Computer Science, 10:1217–1220, 2012. (218)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoz-Weiss, P., S., Kraus, J., Wilkenfeld, D. R., Andersend, and A., Pate. Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations. Artificial Intelligence, 172(1):1–18, 2008. (176)Google Scholar
Ilany, L. and Y., Gal. Algorithm selection In bilateral negotiation. In Late-breaking Developments In the Field of Artificial Intelligence – Papers Presented at the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on AI, pages 50–53, Bellevue, WA, 2013. (168)Google Scholar
In, Y. and R., Serrano. Agenda restrictions In multi-issue bargaining (ii): Unrestricted agendas. Economics Letters, 79:325–331, 2003. (119, 137, 138)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderst, R.Multi-issue bargaining with endogenous agenda. Games and Economic Behavior, 30:64–82, 2000. (119, 137)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
InterAuction. http://www.interaucti.com. (210)
Ito, T., H., Hattori, and M., Klein. Multi-issue negotiation protocol for agents: Exploring nonlinear utility spaces. In Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-07), pages 1347–1352, Hyderabad, India, 2007. (119, 166, 167, 168)Google Scholar
Jennings, N. R., T. J., Norman, P., Faratin, P., O'Brien, and B., Odgers. Implementing a business process management system using ADEPT: A real-world case study. Applied Artificial Intelligence Journal, 14(5):421–190, 2000. (206)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, N. R., P., Faratin, A. R., Lomuscio. S., Parsons, C., Sierra, and M., Wooldridge. Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2):199–215, 2001. (15)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, P. O. and S., Srivastava. The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A., Pervin and O. P., John (eds), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Volume 2), pages 102–138. Guilford Press: New York, 1999. (186)Google Scholar
Johnson, W.Widely distributed instrumentation systems. In I., Foster and C., Kesselman (eds), The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, pages 75–103. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1999. (210)Google Scholar
Jonker, C. and V., Robu. Automated multi-attribute negotiation with efficient use of incomplete preference information. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-04), pages 1056–1063, New York, 2004. (163)Google Scholar
Jonker, C., V., Robu, and J., Treur. An agent architecture for multi-attribute negotiation using incomplete preference information. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 15(2):221–252, 2007. (179, 180)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jun, B.A Structural Consideration on 3-person Bargaining. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 1987. (140, 141)Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and A., Tversky. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2): 263–291, 1979. (191)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalai, E.Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: Interpersonal utility comparisons. Econometrica, 47(7):1623–1630, 1977. (200)Google Scholar
Kalai, E. and M., Smorodinsky. Other solutions to the Nash bargaining problem. Econometrica, 43:513–518, 1975. (197, 198)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kattan, A. and S. S., Fatima. PSO as a meta-search for hyper-GA system to evolve optimal agendas for sequential multi-issue negotiation. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pages 3108–3115, Brisbane, Australia, June 2012. (171)Google Scholar
Katz, R. and S., Kraus. Efficient agents for cliff edge environments with a large set of decision options. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2006), pages 697–704, Hakodate, Japan, 2006. (189)Google Scholar
Katz, R. and S., Kraus. Gender-sensitive automated negotiators. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2007), pages 821–826, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2007. (189)Google Scholar
Kauppi, K., A., Brandon-Jones, S., Ronchi, and E., van Raaij. Tools without skills: Exploring the moderating effect of absorptive capacity on the relationship between e-purchasing tools and category performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 33(7):828–857, 2013. (176)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. and H., Raiffa. Structuring and analyzing values for multi-issue negotiations. In. P., Young (ed.), Negotiation Analysis, pages 131–151. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 1991. (102)Google Scholar
Kellerer, H. and U., Pferschy. A new fully polynomial time approximation scheme for the knapsack problem. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 3:59-71, 1999. (116)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerer, H., U., Pferschy, and D., Pisinger. Knapsack Problems. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2004. (114)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersten, G. and H., Lai. Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: An overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(6):553–586, 2007. (176)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaus, B. and M., Walzi. Stable many-to-many matchings with contracts. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 45:422–434, 2009. (150)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M., P., Faratin, H., Sayama, and Y., Bar-Yam. Negotiating complex contracts. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 8(6):32–38, 2003. (166, 167, 168)Google Scholar
Knuth, D.Stable Marriages and its Relation to Other Combinatorial Problems: An Introduction to the Mathematical Analysis ofAlgorithms. American Mathematical Society: Providence, RI, 1996. (151)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, S.An overview of incentive contracting. Artificial Intelligence, 83(2):297–346, 1996. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, S.Strategic Negotiation in Multiagent Environments. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2001. (15, 72, 74, 211, 215)Google Scholar
Kraus, S. and D., Lehmann. Designing and building a negotiating automated agent. Computational Intelligence, 11(1):132–171, 1995. (178, 179)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, S., P., Hoz-Weiss, J., Wilkenfeld, D., Anderson, and A., Pate. Resolving crises through automated bilateral negotiations. Artificial Intelligence, 172:1–18, 2008. (73, 119)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, D. and R., Wilson. Sequential equilibrium. Econometrica, 50:863–894, 1982. (52)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishna, V.Auction Theory. Academic Press: London, 2002. (143, 156, 211)Google Scholar
Krishna, V. and R., Serrano. Multilateral bargaining. Review of Economic Studies, 63:61–80, 1996. (141)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laffont, J. and J., Tirole. A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulations. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1993. (147)Google Scholar
Lai, G., K., Sycara, and C., Li. A decentralized model for automated multi-attribute negotiations with incomplete information and general utility functions. Journal of MultiAgent and Grid Systems, 4(1):45–65, 2008. (165)Google Scholar
Landsbereger, M. and I., Meilejson. Monopoly insurance under adverse selection when agents differ in risk aversion. Journal of Economic Theory, 63:392–407, 1994. (147)Google Scholar
Lax, D. A. and J. K., Sebenius. Thinking coalitionally: Party arithmetic, process opportunism, and strategic sequencing. H. P., Young (eds.), Negotiation Analysis, pages 153–193. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 1992. (176)Google Scholar
Lin, P., K., Abney, and G. A., Bekey (eds). Robot Ethics. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2012. (13)Google Scholar
Lin, R. and S., Kraus. Can automated agents proficiently negotiate with humans?Communications of the ACM, 53(1):78–88, 2010. (176)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, R., D., Dor-Shifer, S., Kraus, and D., Sarne. Local negotiation in cellular networks: From theory to practice. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-06), pages 1801–1807, Boston, MA, 2006. (215)Google Scholar
Lin, R., S., Kraus, J., Wilkenfeld, and J., Barry. Negotiating with bounded rational agents in environments with incomplete information using an automated agent. Artificial Intelligence, 172(6&7):823–851, 2008. (73, 119, 181, 183, 205)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, R., Y., Oshrat, and S., Kraus. Investigating the benefits of automated negotiations in enhancing people's negotiation skills. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pages 345–352, Budapest, Hungary, 2009. (176)Google Scholar
Lin, R., Y., Gev, and S., Kraus. Bridging the gap: Face-to-face negotiations with an automated mediator. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6):40–47, 2011. (73, 190)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, R., S., Kraus, , K.|HindriksT., Baarslag, D., Tykhonov, and C., Jonker. GENIUS: An integrated environment for supporting the design of generic automated negotiators. Computational Intelligence, 2012. (172)Google Scholar
Lin, R., Y., Gal, S., Kraus, and Y., Mazliah. Training with automated agents improves people's behavior in negotiation and coordination tasks. Decision Support Systems, 60:1–9, 2014. (176, 221)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomuscio, A. R., M., Wooldridge, and N. R., Jennings. A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(1):31–56, 2003. (15)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, F., M., Wooldridge, and A. Q, Novais. Negotiation among autonomous computational agents: Principles, analysis and challenges. Artificial Intelligence Review, 29:1–14, 2008. (2,15)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1959. (182)Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. and H., Raiffa. Games and Decisions. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1957. (163, 197)Google Scholar
Luo, X., N. R., Jennings, N., Shadbolt, H., Leung, and J., Lee. A fuzzy constraint based model for bilateral multi-issue negotiations in semi-competitive environments. Artificial Intelligence, 148:53–102, 2002. (163)Google Scholar
Luo, X., J., Lee, H., Leung, and N. R., JenningsPrioritise fuzzy constraint satisfaction problems: Axioms, instantiation and validation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 136(2): 151–188, 2003. (163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, C. and M., Manove. Bargaining with deadlines and imperfect player control. Econometrica, 61(93):1313–1339, 1993. (94)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macho-Stadler, I. and J., Perez-Castrillo. Moral hazard and cooperation. Economic Letters, 35:17–20, 1991. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manlove, D.Algorithmics of Matching under Preferences. World Scientific: Singapore, 2013. (151)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, P. and M., Mariotti. Perfect equilibria in a model of bargaining with arbitration. Games and Economic Behavior, 37(1):170–195, 2001. (95)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsa-Maestre, I., M., Lopez-Carmona, J., Velasco, T., Ito, M., Klein, and K., Fujita. Balancing utility and deal probability for auction-based negotiations in highly nonlinear utility spaces. In Proceedings of the Twenty First International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-09), pages 214–219, Pasadena, CA, 2009. (168)Google Scholar
Marsa-Maestre, I., M., Lopez-Carmona, M., Klein, T., Ito, and K., Fujita. Addressing utility space complexity in negotiations involving highly uncorrelated constraint based utility spaces. Computational Intelligence, 30(1): 1–29, 2014. (168)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martello, S. and P., Toth. Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations. John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1990. Chapter 2. (102, 103, 114)Google Scholar
Marx, L. and G., Shaffer. Break-up fees and bargaining power in sequential contracting. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28:451–463, 2010. (155)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., M. D., Whinston, and J. R., Green. Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1995. (44)Google Scholar
Maschler, M., E., Solan, and S., Zamir. Game Theory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2013. (7, 16, 17, 18)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, W. and S., Suri. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1):1–23, 2012. (191)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matos, N., C., Sierra, and N. R., JenningsDeterminin successful negotiation strategies: An evolutionary approach. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-98), pages 182–189, Paris, France, 1998. (163)Google Scholar
Matthews, S.Selling to risk-averse buyers with unobservable tastes. Journal of Economic Theory, 30:370–400, 1983. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAfee, R. and J., McMillan. Bidding for contracts: A principal-agent analysis. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(3):326–338, 1986. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBurney, P., S., Parsons, and M., Wooldridge. Desiderata for agent argumentation protocols. In Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2002), pages 402–409, Bologna, Italy, 2002. (209)Google Scholar
McKelvey, R. D. and T. R., Palfrey. An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica, 60(4):803–836, 1992. (176)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcrae, R. R. and P. T., Costa. of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:81–90, 1987. (186)Google Scholar
Mertens, J. and S., Zamir. Formulation of Bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information. International Journal of Game Theory, 10:619–634, 1985. (86)Google Scholar
Milgrom, P. and R., Weber. A theory of auctions and competitive bidding. Econometrica, 50(5):1089–1122, 1982. (143)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgrom, P. and R., Weber. The theory of auctions and competitive bidding, II. In P., Klempere. (ed.), The Economic Theory of Auctions, pages 181–245. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, 2000. (144)Google Scholar
Modi, P., M., Veloso, S., Smith, and J., Oh. CMRadar: A personal assistant agent for calendar management. In Agent-Oriented Information Systems II, pages 169–181. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2005. (218)Google Scholar
Muthoo, A.Bargaining Theory with Applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999. (76)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B.Utilitarianism, egalitarianism, and the timing effect in social choice problems. Econometrica, 49(4):883–897, 1981. (32)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B.Mechanis design by an informed principal. Econometrica, 51:17671798, 1983. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B.Two person bargaining problems with incomplete information. Econometrica, 52:461–188, 1984. (199)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myerson, R. B. (ed.). Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1991. (17)
Nalebuff, B. and J., Stiglitz. Information, competition, and markets. American Economic Review, 73(2):278–283, 1983. (147)Google Scholar
Narayanan, V. and N. R., Jennings. Learnin to negotiate optimally in non-stationary environments. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, pages 288–300, Edinburgh, UK, 2006. (165)Google Scholar
Nash, J. F.The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18:155–162, 1950. (194, 196, 203, 205)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, J. F.Noncooperative games. Annals of Mathematics, 54:289–295, 1951. (24, 26, 194)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, J. F.Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica, 21:128–140, 1953. (192, 194, 199)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nauck'sVintageRecords. http://www.infohwy.com/nauck/vra19/PROTOCOL.htm. (210)
Newell, A. J., C., Shaw, and H. A., Simon. Chess-playing programs and the problem of complexity. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 2:320–335, 1958. (22)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, T. and N. R., Jennings. Coordinating multiple concurrent negotiations. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-04), pages 1064–1071, New York, 2004. (164)Google Scholar
Nisan, N., T., Roughgarden, E., Tardos, and V. V., Vazirani (eds). Algorithmic Game Theory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2007. (13, 16)CrossRef
Norman, T., N., Jennings, P., Faratin, and A., Mamdani. Designing and implementing a multi-agent architecture for business process management. In J. P., MüllerM., Wooldridge, and N. R., Jennings (eds), Intelligent Agents III (LNAI Volume 1193), pages 261–276. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1997. (206)Google Scholar
Nouri, E., K., Georgila, and D., Traum. A cultural decision-making model for negotiation based on inverse reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), Sapporo, Japan, 2012. (189)Google Scholar
Oguz, S., A., Kucukyilmaz, T., Sezgin, and C., Basdog. Supporting negotiation behavior with haptics-enabled human–computer interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 5(3):274–284, 2012. (179)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ohko, T., K., Hiraki, and Y., Anzai. Reducing communication load on contract net by case-based reasoning – extension with directed contract and forgetting. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), San Francisco, CA, 1995. (147)Google Scholar
Oliver, J.A machine-learning approach to automated negotiation and prospects for electronic commerce. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3):83–112, 1996. (162,163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onsale. http://www.onsale.com. (210)
Ortony, A., G. L., Clore, and A., Collins. The Cognitive Structure of Emotions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1990. (186)Google Scholar
Osborne, M. J. and A., Rubinstein. Bargaining and Markets. Academic Press: London, 1990. (15, 74, 75, 76, 139, 140)Google Scholar
Osborne, M. J. and A., Rubinstein. A Course in Game Theory. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994. (16, 17, 20, 157, 211)Google Scholar
Oshrat, Y., R., Lin, and S., Kraus. Facing the challenge of human–agent negotiations via effective general opponent modeling. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2009), pages 377–384, Budapest, Hungary, 2009. (183)Google Scholar
Ossowski, S. (ed.). Agreement Technologies. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2013. (15)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolacci, G., J., Chandler, and P., Ipeirotis. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5):411–419, 2010. (191)Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, C. H.Algorithms, games, and the Internet. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACMS ymposium on Theory of Computing (STOC-2001), Heraklion, Crete, 2001. (27)Google Scholar
Papadimitriou, C. H. and K., Steiglitz. Combinatorial Optimization. Prentice-Hall International: Hemel Hempstead, 1982. (115, 119)Google Scholar
Parsons, S., C., Sierra, and N.R., Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8:261–192, 1998. (209)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paurobally, S. and N. R., Jennings. Automating negotiation for m-services. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (Part A), 33(6):709–724, 2003. (213, 214)Google Scholar
Peled, N., Y., Gal, and S., Kraus. A study of computational and human strategies in revelation games. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2011), pages 345–352, Taipei, Taiwan, 2011. (177, 187)Google Scholar
Peled, N., Y., Gal, and S., Kraus. An agent design for repeated negotiation and information revelation with people. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2013), Bellevue, WA, 2013. (184, 185)Google Scholar
Perry, M.An example of price formation in bilateral situations: A bargaining model with incomplete information. Econometrica, 54(2):313–321, 1986. (96)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PhoebusAuctionGallery. http://www.phoebusauction.com. (210)
Ponka, I.Commitment Models and Concurrent Bilateral Negotiation Strategies in Dynamic Service Markets. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, UK, March 2009. (156)Google Scholar
Ponka, I. and N. R., Jennings. Changing circumstances and leveled commitment: A compensatory approach to contracting. In Proceedings of the IEEE Joint Conference on E-Commerce Technology and Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce and E-Services, pages 141–148, Tokyo, Japan, 2007. (156)Google Scholar
Ponsati, C. and J., Sákovics. Rubinstein bargaining with two-sided outside options. Economic Theory, 11(3):667–672, 1998. (95)Google Scholar
Ponsati, C. and J., Watson. Multiple-issue bargaining and axiomatic solutions. International Journal of Game Theory, 26:501–524, 1997. (97, 98, 197, 200)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Procaccia, A. D.Cake cutting: Not just child's play. Communications of the ACM, 56 (7):78–87, 2013. (232)Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press: New York, 1981. (16, 159)Google Scholar
Rahwan, I. and G., Simar. (eds). Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2009. (6, 232)
Rahwan, I., L., Sonenberg, N. R., Jennings, and P., McBurney. STRATUM: A methodology for designing heuristic agent negotiation strategies. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 21:489–527, 2007. (172)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H.The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1982. (16, 159)Google Scholar
Rand, D.The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299:172–179, 2012. (191)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rapoport, A., E., Weg, and D., Felsenthal. Effects of fixed costs in two-person sequential bargaining. Theory and Decision, 28:47–71, 1990. (79)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmusen, E.Games and Information. Basil Blackwell: Cambridge: MA, 1989. (82, 147)Google Scholar
Regenwetter, M. and E., Rykhlevskaia. A general concept of scoring rules: General definitions, statistical inference, and empirical illustrations. Social Choice and Welfare, 29(2):211–228, 2007. (232)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. and W., Webb. Cake-Cutting Algorithms: Be Fair if You Can. A. K. Peters/CRC Press: Wellesley, MA, 1998. (232)Google Scholar
Robu, V.Modeling Preferences, Strategic Reasoning and Collaboration in Agent-mediated Electronic Markets. PhD thesis, CWI, National Research Center for Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam, 2009. (167)Google Scholar
Robu, V. and J. A., La Poutre. Learning the structure of utility graphs used in multi-issue negotiation through collaborative filtering. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4078, pages 192–209. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2009. (167)Google Scholar
Robu, V., D., Somefun, and H., La Poutre. Modeling complex multi-issue negotiations using utility graphs. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2005), pages 280–287, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2005. (166, 167, 168)Google Scholar
Rodríguez, J. A., P., Noriega, C., Sierra, and J., Padget. FM96.5: A Java-based electronic marketplace. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Practical Application ofIntelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM-97), pages 207–224, London, UK, 1997. (210)Google Scholar
Romero-Medina, A., Implementation of stable solutions in a restricted matching market. Review of Economic Design, 3:137–147, 1998. (151)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, A., I., Zuckerman, A., Azaria, and S., Kraus. Combining psychological models with machine learning to better predict people's decisions. Synthese, 189(1): 81–93, 2012. (187)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenschein, J. S.Consenting agents: Negotiation mechanisms for multi-agent systems. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pages 792–799, Chambéry, France, 1993. (72)Google Scholar
Rosenschein, J. S. and G., Zlotkin. Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation among Computers. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1994. (3, 10, 14, 15, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, 72, 201, 202)Google Scholar
Ross, S.The economic theory of agency: The principal's problem. American Economic Review, 63(2):134–139, 1973. (147)Google Scholar
Roth, A.Axiomatic Models of Bargaining. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979. (196, 199)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. and M., Sotomayor. Two-sided Matching: A Study in Game-theoretic Modeling and Analysis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1990. (149, 150, 151)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A.Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1): 97–109, 1982. (14, 15, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 82, 94, 119, 203)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A.A bargaining model with incomplete information about time preferences. Econometrica, 53:1151–1172, 1985. (87, 95, 119, 138)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinstein, A.Modeling Bounded Rationality. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1998. (22, 191)Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. and M., Yaari. Repeated insurance contracts and moral hazard. Journal of Economic Theory, 30:74–97, 1983. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadeh, N.M-Commerce: Technologies, Services and Business Models. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2002. (213)Google Scholar
Sandholm, T.Contract types for satisficing task allocation I: Theoretical results. In AAAI Spring Symposium on Satisficing Models, Stanford, CA, 1998. (151, 154, 155, 156)Google Scholar
Sandholm, T.Distributed rational decision making. In G., Weiss (ed.), Multiagent Systems, pages 201–258. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1999. (15)Google Scholar
Sandholm, T.eMediator: A next generation electronic commerce server. Computational Intelligence, 18(4):656–676, 2002. (210)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholm, T.Expressive commerce and its application to sourcing: How we conducted $35 billion of generalized combinatorial auctions. AI Magazine, 28(3):45–58, 2007. (12)Google Scholar
Sandholm, T. and C., Boutilier. Preference elicitation in combinatorial auctions. In P., Cramton, Y., Shoham, and R., Steinber. (eds), Combinatorial Auctions, pages 233–264. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2006. (12)Google Scholar
Sandholm, T. and V., Lesser. Issues in automated negotiation and electronic commerce: Extending the contract net framework. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), pages 328–335, San Francisco, CA, June 1995. (148)Google Scholar
Sandholm, T. and V., Lesser. Leveled commitment contracts and strategic breach. Games and Economic Behavior, 35:212–270, 2001. (148)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholm, T. and N., Vulkan. Bargaining with deadlines. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-99), pages 44–51, Orlando, FL, 1999. (96)Google Scholar
Santos, R., G., Marreiros, C., Ramos, J., Neves, and J., Bulas-Cru. Using personality types to support argumentation. In Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems (ArgMAS 2009), Budapest, Hungary, 2009. (186)Google Scholar
Santos, R., G., Marreiros, C., Ramos, J., Neves, and J., Bulas-Cruz. Personality, emotion, and mood in agent-based group decision making. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(6):58–66, 2011. (186)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterthwaite, M.Strategy-proofness and Arrow's conditions: Existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 10:187–217, 1975. (228)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L.The Foundations of Statistics. Dover Publications: Mineola, NY, 1972. (187)Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C.An essay on bargaining. American Economic Review, 46:281306, 1956. (97, 119)Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. The Strategy of Conflict. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1960. (97)Google Scholar
Selten, R.Reexamination of the perfectness concept for equilibrium points in extensive games. International Journal of Game Theory, 4:25–55, 1975. (45)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R.The chain store paradox. Theory and Decisions, 9:127–159, 1978. (41)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R.Aspiration adaptation theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42(2): 191–214, 1998. (187)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selten, R. and R., Stoecker. End behavior in sequences of finite prisoner's dilemma supergames: A learning theory approach. Economic Behavior and Organization, 7(1):47–70, 1986. (189)Google Scholar
Sen, S. and E., Durfee. A contracting model for flexible distributed scheduling. Annals of Operations Research, 65:195–222, 1996. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SevenSeasTradingCo. http://www.7cs.com. (210)
Shaked, A. and J., Sutton. Involuntary unemployment as a perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 52:1351–1364, 1984. (82)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakshuki, E., H., Koo, D., Benoit, and D., Silver. A distributed multi-agent meeting scheduler. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 74(2):279–296, 2008. (218)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapley, L. and M., Shubik. The assignment game I: The core. International Journal of Game Theory, 1:111–130, 1972. (149)Google Scholar
Sharp, R.The Game of Diplomacy. A. Barker. London, 1978. (178)Google Scholar
Shavell, S.Risk sharing and incentives in the principal and agent relationship. Bell Journal of Economics, 10:55–79, 1979. (147)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoham, Y. and K., Leyton-Brown. Multiagent Systems: Algorithmic, Game-Theoretic, and Logical Foundations. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2008. (16, 28)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sierra, C., P., Faratin, and N. R., Jennings. A service-oriented negotiation model between autonomous agents. In Proceedings of the Eighth European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (MAAMAW-97), pages 17–35, Ronneby, Sweden, 1997. (208)Google Scholar
Sim, K.Grid commerce, market-driven G-negotiation, and grid resource management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part B: Cybernetics, 36(6):1381–1394, 2010a. (211)Google Scholar
Sim, K.Grid resource negotiation: Survey and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews, 40(3): 245–257, 2010b. (211)Google Scholar
Smith, R. G.The contract net protocol: High level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C–29(12): 1104–1113, 1980a. (211)Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. A Framework for Distributed Problem Solving. UMI Research Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 1980b. (145, 146)Google Scholar
Smith, R. G.The contract net protocol. IEEE Transactions on Computers, C–29(12), 1980c. (15)Google Scholar
Sobel, J. and I., Takahashi. A multi state model of bargaining. Review of Economic Studies, 50:411–126, 1983. (95)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sofer, I., D., Sarne, and A., Hassidim. Negotiation in exploration-based environment. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2012), Toronto, Canada, 2012. (95)Google Scholar
Somefun, D. and J., LaPoutre. A fast method for learning non-linear preferences online using anonymous negotiation data. In M., Fasli and O., Shehor. (eds), Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce. Automated Negotiation and Strategy Design for Electronic Markets, pages 118–131. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2007. (168)Google Scholar
Spence, M. and R., Zeckhauser. Insurance, information, and individual action. The American Economic Review, 61(1):380–391, 1971. (147)Google Scholar
Stahl, I.Bargaining Theory. Economics Research Institute, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, 1972. (74)Google Scholar
Stangor, C.Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences (Fourth Edition). Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, 2011. (191)Google Scholar
Stevens, R.Group oriented collaboration: The access grid collaboration system. In I., Foster and C., Kesselma. (eds), The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 2004. (210)Google Scholar
Stonebraker, M., R., Devine, M., Kornacker, W., Litwin, A., Pfeffer, A., Sah, and C., Staelin. An economic paradigm for query processing and data migration in mariposa. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Information Systems, pages 58–67, Austin, TX, 1994. (211)Google Scholar
Straffin, P.Game Theory and Strategy. Mathematical Association of America: Washington, D.C., 1993. (38)Google Scholar
Suh, S. and Q., Wen. Multi-agent bilateral bargaining and the Nash bargaining solution. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 42:61–73, 2006. (141)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, J.Non-cooperative bargaining theory: An introduction. Review of Economic Studies, 53(5):709–724, 1986. (97, 204)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talman, S., M., Hadad, Y., Gal, and S., Kraus. Adapting to agents' personalities in ne-gotiation. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, pages 383–389, Barcelona, Spain, 2005. (164)Google Scholar
Tambe, M.Electric elves: What went wrong and why. AI Magazine, 29(2):23, 2008. (176)Google Scholar
Taylor, A. D.Mathematics and Politics. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1995. (232)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, C. and B., Wilson. A comparison of auctions and multilateral negotiations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 33(1):140–155, 2002. (156)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, W. and T., Lensberg. Axiomatic Theory of Bargaining with a Variable Number of Agents. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2006. (205)Google Scholar
Toulmin, S.The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1958. (232)Google Scholar
Trading Agent Competition. http://tradingagents.eecs.umich.edu/. (164, 174)
Traum, D., W., Swartout, S., Marsella, and J., Gratch. Fight, flight, or negotiate: Believable strategies for conversing under crisis. In Intelligent Virtual Agents, pages 52–64. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2005. (190)Google Scholar
Traum, D., S. C., Marsella, J., Gratch, J., Lee, and A., Hartholt. Multi-party, multi-issue, multi-strategy negotiation for multi-modal virtual agents. In Intelligent Virtual Agents, pages 117–130. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2008. (190)Google Scholar
van Damme, E.Refinements of the Nash Equilibrium Concept. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1983. (52)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Putten, S., V., Robu, J., La Poutre, A., Jorritsma, and M., Gal. Automating supply chain negotiations using autonomous agents: A case study in transportation logistics. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS-2006), pages 1506–1513, Hakodate, Japan, 2006. (217, 218)Google Scholar
van Dyke Parunak, H.Manufacturing experience with the Contract Net. In M., Huhns (ed.), Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufman Publishers: San Mateo, CA, 1987. (147)Google Scholar
Vickrey, W.Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance, 16:8–37, 1961. (156, 219)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickrey, W.Auctions and bidding games. In Recent Advances in Game Theory, pages 15–27. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1962. (156, 219)Google Scholar
von Neumann, J. and O., Morgenstern. Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1944. (15, 17)Google Scholar
Vulkan, N.The Economics of E-Commerce. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 2004. (16)Google Scholar
Walton, D.|N. and E. C. W., Krabbe. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, 1995. (232)Google Scholar
Wand, M. and M., Jones. Kernel Smoothing. Chapman and Hall: London, 1995. (163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C., V., Robu, E., Gerding, and N., Jennings. Using Gaussian processes to optimise concession in complex negotiations against unknown opponents. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-2011), pages 432–138, Barcelona, Spain, 2011. (166)Google Scholar
Williams, V., Robu, E. Gerding, and N., Jennings. Negotiating concurrently with unknown opponents in complex, real-time domains. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-2012), pages 834–839, Montpellier, France, 2012. (164, 166)Google Scholar
Wolski, R., J., Brevik, J., Plank, and T., Bryan. Grid resource allocation and control using computational economies In F., Berman, G., Fox, and T., Hey. (eds), The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Infrastructure, pages 747–772. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2003. (211)Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M.An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2009. (16)Google Scholar
Wooldridge, M.Does game theory work?IEEE Intelligent Systems, 27(6):76–80, 2012. (9)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, M., S., Bussmann, and M., Klosterberg. Production sequencing as negotiation. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM-96), pages 709–726, London, UK, 1996. (69, 72)Google Scholar
Wu, M., M., de Weerdt, J., La Poutre, C., Yadati, Y., Zhang, and C., Witteveen. Multi-player multi-issue negotiation with complete information. In T., Ito, M., Zhang, V., Robu, S. S., Fatima, T., Matsuo, and H., Yamaki (eds), Innovations in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations, pages 147–159. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 2009. (141)Google Scholar
Zeng, D. and K., Sycara. Bayesian learning in negotiation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48:125–141, 1998. (163)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeuthen, F.Problems of Monopoly and Economic Warfare. G. Routledge and Sons: London, 1930. (202)Google Scholar
Zheng, R., N., Chakraborty, T., Dai, and K., Sycara. Automated multiagent negotiation on multiple issues with private information. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-13-04, CMU, Pittsburgh, PA, 2013. (167)
Zlotkin, G. and J. S., RosenscheinNegotiation and task sharing among autonomous agents in cooperative domains. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-89), pages 912–917, Detroit, MI, 1989. (72)Google Scholar
Zlotkin, G. and J. S., Rosenschein. A domain theory for task oriented negotiation. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-93), pages 416–422, Chambéry, France, 1993. (72)Google Scholar