WO2012047237A1 - Automated negotiation - Google Patents

Automated negotiation Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2012047237A1
WO2012047237A1 PCT/US2010/052089 US2010052089W WO2012047237A1 WO 2012047237 A1 WO2012047237 A1 WO 2012047237A1 US 2010052089 W US2010052089 W US 2010052089W WO 2012047237 A1 WO2012047237 A1 WO 2012047237A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
terms
party
acceptable
region
offer
Prior art date
Application number
PCT/US2010/052089
Other languages
French (fr)
Inventor
Mehmet Kivanc Ozonat
Sharad Singhal
Original Assignee
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed Critical Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
Priority to PCT/US2010/052089 priority Critical patent/WO2012047237A1/en
Priority to US13/877,395 priority patent/US20130191238A1/en
Priority to EP10858256.0A priority patent/EP2625658A4/en
Publication of WO2012047237A1 publication Critical patent/WO2012047237A1/en

Links

Classifications

    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06QINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce
    • G06Q30/06Buying, selling or leasing transactions
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
    • G06QINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce
    • G06Q30/02Marketing; Price estimation or determination; Fundraising

Definitions

  • Figure 1 is a block diagram showing an example of a negotiating system within a server that negotiates with a buyer in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
  • Figure 2 shows an example of a seller's region of acceptable terms for sale of a good in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
  • Figure 3 shows an example of an offer history for a buyer in a negotiation in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
  • Figure 4 shows an example of an estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms superimposed on the offer history shown in Figure 3, in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
  • Figure 5 shows an example of the results of calculation of a threshold distance between the seller's region of acceptable terms shown in Figure 2 and the estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms shown in Figure 4 in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
  • Figure 6 is an example flowchart illustrating a negotiation process in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a negotiating system 21 within a server 20.
  • Negotiating system 21 performs a negotiation with a buyer 10 utilizing a web browser 17 within a computer 1 1 to communicate with
  • negotiating system 21 receives one or more offers from buyer 10, as represented in Figure 1 by an arrow 15, and potentially sends one or more offers back to buyer 10, as represented by an arrow 14.
  • Negotiating system may also accept an offer made by buyer 10.
  • Negotiating system 21 includes a distance estimator 24 and a change detector 25.
  • the change detector 25 includes a frequency estimator 26 and a path partitioner 27.
  • Offer history 23 includes an offer history for buyer 10 and can additionally include an offer history for previous negotiations with the same or other buyers and even potential buyers who were part of negotiations that did not end up in a purchase.
  • the seller's region of acceptable terms is defined by a utility function 22 that indicates, for a plurality of factors, combinations of terms that would be acceptable to a seller represented by negotiation system 21 .
  • a seller utility function 22 based on the consideration of only two terms: price and quantity. For quantities of one, two or three, the seller is willing to sell a product for a minimum price of ten dollars.
  • the product is, for example, a good or a service.
  • For a quantity of four products the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of nine dollars.
  • For a quantity of five products the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of eight dollars.
  • a quantity of six products the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of seven dollars.
  • quantities of seven or more the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of six dollars.
  • the region of acceptable terms defined by the above-described utility function is illustrated by Figure 2.
  • a graph 30 has a line 31 that demarks a frontier of a region of acceptable terms 32 that would be acceptable to the seller.
  • any offers on or above frontier line 31 are within region of acceptable terms 32 and thus are acceptable to the seller. That is, the frontier represented by 31 demarks region of acceptable terms 32 and thus indicates which combinations of terms for an agreement would be acceptable to the seller.
  • Figure 3 illustrates offers made in a negotiation to purchase the product.
  • a buyer made an offer 41 to purchase eleven products at a price per product of $3, followed by an offer 42 to purchase ten products at a price per product of $4, an offer 43 to purchase two products at a price per product of $8, an offer 44 to purchase three products at a price per product of $7, an offer 45 to purchase four products at a price per product of $6, an offer 46 to purchase five products at a price per product of $6 and an offer 47 to purchase six products at a price per product of $6.
  • frequency estimator 26 detects the difference between term values for consecutive offers from a buyer. That is, offers differ based on the values of the terms for each offer. For example, between offer 41 and offer 42 there is a difference in each of the terms. Offer 41 was for eleven products and offer 42 was for ten products; therefore, between offer 41 and offer 42 there is a difference of one (1 ) in the product. Offer 41 was for $3 per product and offer 42 was for $4 per product; therefore, between offer 41 and offer 42 there is a difference of minus one (-1 ) in the price term. The difference in the offers can thus be represented by (1 ,-1 ) indicating a difference of one in the product term and a difference of minus one in the price term.
  • Offer 45 and offer 46 have difference of (-1 ,0) indicating a difference of minus one in the product term and no difference in the price term.
  • Path partitioner 27 uses the step frequencies discovered by
  • a first strategy (offer path) 51 was detected for offer 41 and offer 42.
  • a second strategy 52 was detected for offer 43 and offer 44.
  • a third strategy 53 was detected for offer 45, offer 46 and offer 47.
  • step entropy is the negative logarithm of the step frequency, as the step frequency is calculated above.
  • the information-theoretic entropy of each step is computed based on the frequency of the step.
  • the entire sequence is partitioned into one or more segments (also called offer paths or strategies) to minimize the entropy cost of the entire sequence.
  • the entropy cost of a segment is the sum of the entropies of the steps within the offer path that form the segment.
  • the entropy cost of the entire sequence of offers is the sum of two costs.
  • the first cost is a sum of the entropies for all the segments.
  • the second cost monotonically increases with the number of segments. For example, the second cost is equal to the number of segments. Alternatively, any function that monotonically increases with the number of segments can be used.
  • distance estimator 24 estimates the distance from each strategy to the seller's
  • acceptable region of offers This can be done by, for example, by estimating the most likely future trajectory of the buyer given each path, where the likelihood of a trajectory can be estimated based on the step frequencies.
  • the location of a buyer frontier defining an estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 is shown in Figure 5.
  • Estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 indicates combinations of terms for selling the products that are estimated to be acceptable to the buyer.
  • the location of estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 is estimated by estimating future trajectories for each path, it is possible to determine locations where the distance between buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 and the seller's region of acceptable terms 32 is within a threshold value. For example, within the threshold value can occur wherever there is a minimum distance between the seller's region of acceptable terms and the estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57.
  • distance can be quantified by computing a value for likelihood of possible future trajectories based on step frequencies, and then assigning a value for distance that is equal to a ratio of one over the value for likelihood of possible future trajectories.
  • Figure 5 illustrates a result of determining locations where the distance between buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 and the seller's region of acceptable terms 32 is within a threshold value.
  • distance estimator 24 estimates the location of a buyer frontier defining an estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57, shown in Figure 5.
  • Estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 indicates which combination of terms for selling the products are estimated to be acceptable to the buyer.
  • the location of estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 is estimated, it is possible to determine locations where the distance between buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 and the seller's region of acceptable terms 32 is at a minimum value or within another threshold value. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
  • the identified first strategy 51 , second strategy 52 and third strategy 53 have been used to locate an estimated buyer frontier 55.
  • Negotiation system 21 thus infers that all points on or below buyer frontier line 55 are acceptable to the buyer and are within the estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57.
  • the seller frontier 31 intersects with estimated buyer frontier 55 at offer terms indicated by oval 56.
  • Oval 56 represents offer terms where the distance between the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms and the seller's region of acceptable terms is within a threshold value.
  • the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms is within a threshold distance of the seller's region of acceptable terms when seller frontier 31 and estimated buyer frontier 55 overlap. If there is no overlap, the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms is within a threshold distance from the seller's region of acceptable terms wherever terms represented by seller frontier 31 are closest to terms represented by estimated buyer frontier 55.
  • negotiation system 21 will make a next offer from offer terms within oval 56 where the distance between the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms and the seller's region of acceptable terms is at a minimum value or within another threshold value. For example, offer system 21 will offer to sell 7 products at a price per product of $6 and/or will offer to sell 8 products at a price per product of $6.
  • FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating a negotiation conducted by negotiation system 21 .
  • negotiation system 20 makes an offer containing values for terms that are within the seller region of acceptable terms (SRAT) for the products.
  • SRAT seller region of acceptable terms
  • negotiation system 21 waits for a response.
  • negotiation system 21 checks whether the offer has been accepted. If not, in a block 64, negotiation system 21 checks whether a counter-offer given by the buyer contains values for terms within the seller region of acceptable terms.
  • negotiation system 21 utilizes change detector 25 and distance estimator 24 to prepare a new offer. Particularly, change detector 25 and distance estimator 24 are used, as described above, to estimate a buyer region of acceptable terms.
  • negotiation system 21 then can determine offer terms that are within a threshold distance— for example, they are at a minimum distance— between the seller region of acceptable terms and the estimated seller region of acceptable terms.
  • the threshold distance can encompass offer terms where the seller region of acceptable terms and the estimated seller region of acceptable terms overlap.
  • the new offer contains values for terms within the seller region of acceptable terms that are within a threshold distance from the estimated seller region of acceptable terms. After making the new offer, negotiation system 21 returns to block 62 to way for a response.
  • negotiation system 21 recognizes that the latest offer has been accepted, in a block 67 the negotiation is completed.
  • negotiation system 21 When in block 64 negotiation system 21 recognizes that counter-offer contains a combination of values for terms that is within the seller region of acceptable terms, in a block 66 negotiation system 21 accepts the counter-offer and in block 67 the negotiation is completed.
  • the automated negotiation is performed on behalf of a seller where the seller's utility function is known and a buyer's utility function is estimated based on the buyer's offer history and in some cases others buyer's offer history.
  • the automated negotiation also can be performed on behalf of a buyer where the buyer's utility function is known, and a seller's utility function is estimated based on the seller's offer history.
  • a new offer will contain values for terms within the buyer's region of acceptable terms defined by the buyer's utility function within a threshold distance from an estimated seller's region of acceptable terms.
  • the automated negotiation was illustrated in the negotiation of an agreement to purchase a product, such as a good or service.
  • the automated negotiation can be performed in any type of agreement where a first party and a second party are negotiating terms.
  • automated negotiation was illustrated using utility functions based on consideration of two terms. However, the automated negotiation can also use utility functions based on consideration of one, three, four or more terms.
  • Apparatuses implementing these techniques may include appropriate input and output devices, a computer processor, and/or a tangible computer- readable storage medium storing instructions for execution by a processor.
  • a process implementing techniques disclosed herein may be performed by a processor executing instructions stored on a tangible computer- readable storage medium for performing desired functions by operating on input data and generating appropriate output.
  • Suitable processors include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors.
  • Suitable computer-readable storage devices for storing executable instructions include all forms of non-volatile memory, including, by way of example, semiconductor memory devices, such as Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory
  • EEPROM Electrically erasable programmable read-only memory
  • flash memory devices magnetic disks such as fixed, floppy, and removable disks; other magnetic media including tape; and optical media such as Compact Discs (CDs) or Digital Video Disks (DVDs).
  • CDs Compact Discs
  • DVDs Digital Video Disks

Landscapes

  • Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
  • Finance (AREA)
  • Strategic Management (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Development Economics (AREA)
  • Marketing (AREA)
  • Economics (AREA)
  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
  • Game Theory and Decision Science (AREA)
  • Entrepreneurship & Innovation (AREA)
  • Management, Administration, Business Operations System, And Electronic Commerce (AREA)

Abstract

An agreement is negotiated on behalf of a first party. A region (32) of acceptable terms for the first party is determined. A plurality of offers (15) from a second party is analyzed to detect values for terms that indicate a change in strategy used by the second party when making the plurality of offers (15). A region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party is estimated based on detected locations of changes in strategy. Terms for a new offer (14) from a first party to the second party are provided. The terms of the new offer (14) are within the region (32) of acceptable terms for the first party within a threshold distance from the estimated region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party.

Description

AUTOMATED NEGOTIATION
BACKGROUND
[0001] Shoppers increasingly make purchases over the Internet. Sellers use servers to make goods and services available for sale over the Internet.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS
[0002] Figure 1 is a block diagram showing an example of a negotiating system within a server that negotiates with a buyer in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
[0003] Figure 2 shows an example of a seller's region of acceptable terms for sale of a good in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
[0004] Figure 3 shows an example of an offer history for a buyer in a negotiation in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
[0005] Figure 4 shows an example of an estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms superimposed on the offer history shown in Figure 3, in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
[0006] Figure 5 shows an example of the results of calculation of a threshold distance between the seller's region of acceptable terms shown in Figure 2 and the estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms shown in Figure 4 in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
[0007] Figure 6 is an example flowchart illustrating a negotiation process in accordance with one disclosed implementation.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0008] Figure 1 is a block diagram showing a negotiating system 21 within a server 20. Negotiating system 21 performs a negotiation with a buyer 10 utilizing a web browser 17 within a computer 1 1 to communicate with
negotiating system 21 through the Internet 16. During a negotiation, negotiating system 21 receives one or more offers from buyer 10, as represented in Figure 1 by an arrow 15, and potentially sends one or more offers back to buyer 10, as represented by an arrow 14. Negotiating system may also accept an offer made by buyer 10. Negotiating system 21 includes a distance estimator 24 and a change detector 25. The change detector 25 includes a frequency estimator 26 and a path partitioner 27.
[0009] In order to prepare a response to an offer received from buyer 10, negotiating system 21 consults with a seller's utility function 22 and with offer history 23. Offer history 23 includes an offer history for buyer 10 and can additionally include an offer history for previous negotiations with the same or other buyers and even potential buyers who were part of negotiations that did not end up in a purchase.
[0010] The seller's region of acceptable terms is defined by a utility function 22 that indicates, for a plurality of factors, combinations of terms that would be acceptable to a seller represented by negotiation system 21 .
[0011] For example, consider a seller utility function 22 based on the consideration of only two terms: price and quantity. For quantities of one, two or three, the seller is willing to sell a product for a minimum price of ten dollars. The product is, for example, a good or a service. For a quantity of four products, the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of nine dollars. For a quantity of five products, the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of eight dollars. For a quantity of six products, the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of seven dollars. For quantities of seven or more, the seller is willing to sell each product for a minimum price of six dollars. The region of acceptable terms defined by the above-described utility function is illustrated by Figure 2. In Figure 2, a graph 30 has a line 31 that demarks a frontier of a region of acceptable terms 32 that would be acceptable to the seller. In the example illustrated by Figure 2, any offers on or above frontier line 31 are within region of acceptable terms 32 and thus are acceptable to the seller. That is, the frontier represented by 31 demarks region of acceptable terms 32 and thus indicates which combinations of terms for an agreement would be acceptable to the seller.
[0012] Figure 3 illustrates offers made in a negotiation to purchase the product. For example, in the course of a negotiation, a buyer made an offer 41 to purchase eleven products at a price per product of $3, followed by an offer 42 to purchase ten products at a price per product of $4, an offer 43 to purchase two products at a price per product of $8, an offer 44 to purchase three products at a price per product of $7, an offer 45 to purchase four products at a price per product of $6, an offer 46 to purchase five products at a price per product of $6 and an offer 47 to purchase six products at a price per product of $6.
[0013] During the course of the negotiation, frequency estimator 26 detects the difference between term values for consecutive offers from a buyer. That is, offers differ based on the values of the terms for each offer. For example, between offer 41 and offer 42 there is a difference in each of the terms. Offer 41 was for eleven products and offer 42 was for ten products; therefore, between offer 41 and offer 42 there is a difference of one (1 ) in the product. Offer 41 was for $3 per product and offer 42 was for $4 per product; therefore, between offer 41 and offer 42 there is a difference of minus one (-1 ) in the price term. The difference in the offers can thus be represented by (1 ,-1 ) indicating a difference of one in the product term and a difference of minus one in the price term. Offer 45 and offer 46 have difference of (-1 ,0) indicating a difference of minus one in the product term and no difference in the price term. Frequency estimator 26 measures the difference in values of terms between offers to determine the frequency of steps for the terms. After all differences are computed, their frequencies of occurrence are estimated. For example, consider a repository of 100 buyers and 10 rounds per buyer. We have 100 x 10 = 1000 differences between the consecutive offers. Assume the difference (- 1 ,1 ) occurred 20 times. So, the step frequency of (-1 ,1 ) is 20/1000=0.05.
[0014] Path partitioner 27 uses the step frequencies discovered by
frequency estimator 26 to determine at which offers, the terms indicate changes (if any) occurred in the buyer's strategy. This identifies purchase strategies of the buyer. In Figure 3, the strategies appear as offer paths. For example, for the negotiation illustrated by Figure 3, three different
strategies/offer paths might be detected, as illustrated by Figure 4. A first strategy (offer path) 51 was detected for offer 41 and offer 42. A second strategy 52 was detected for offer 43 and offer 44. A third strategy 53 was detected for offer 45, offer 46 and offer 47.
[0015] One method to partition the sequence of offers into segments— called strategies or offer paths— is based on step entropies. What is meant by step entropy is the negative logarithm of the step frequency, as the step frequency is calculated above. The information-theoretic entropy of each step is computed based on the frequency of the step. Then, the entire sequence is partitioned into one or more segments (also called offer paths or strategies) to minimize the entropy cost of the entire sequence. The entropy cost of a segment is the sum of the entropies of the steps within the offer path that form the segment. The entropy cost of the entire sequence of offers is the sum of two costs. The first cost is a sum of the entropies for all the segments. The second cost monotonically increases with the number of segments. For example, the second cost is equal to the number of segments. Alternatively, any function that monotonically increases with the number of segments can be used.
[0016] Once the individual strategies (i.e., paths) are detected, distance estimator 24 estimates the distance from each strategy to the seller's
acceptable region of offers. This can be done by, for example, by estimating the most likely future trajectory of the buyer given each path, where the likelihood of a trajectory can be estimated based on the step frequencies. The location of a buyer frontier defining an estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 is shown in Figure 5. Estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 indicates combinations of terms for selling the products that are estimated to be acceptable to the buyer. Once the location of estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 is estimated by estimating future trajectories for each path, it is possible to determine locations where the distance between buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 and the seller's region of acceptable terms 32 is within a threshold value. For example, within the threshold value can occur wherever there is a minimum distance between the seller's region of acceptable terms and the estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57.
[0017] For example, distance can be quantified by computing a value for likelihood of possible future trajectories based on step frequencies, and then assigning a value for distance that is equal to a ratio of one over the value for likelihood of possible future trajectories. Figure 5 illustrates a result of determining locations where the distance between buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 and the seller's region of acceptable terms 32 is within a threshold value.
[0018] Once the individual strategies are detected, distance estimator 24 estimates the location of a buyer frontier defining an estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57, shown in Figure 5. Estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 indicates which combination of terms for selling the products are estimated to be acceptable to the buyer. Once the location of estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 is estimated, it is possible to determine locations where the distance between buyer's region of acceptable terms 57 and the seller's region of acceptable terms 32 is at a minimum value or within another threshold value. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
[0019] In Figure 5, the identified first strategy 51 , second strategy 52 and third strategy 53 have been used to locate an estimated buyer frontier 55. Negotiation system 21 thus infers that all points on or below buyer frontier line 55 are acceptable to the buyer and are within the estimated buyer's region of acceptable terms 57. The seller frontier 31 intersects with estimated buyer frontier 55 at offer terms indicated by oval 56. Oval 56 represents offer terms where the distance between the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms and the seller's region of acceptable terms is within a threshold value. For example, the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms is within a threshold distance of the seller's region of acceptable terms when seller frontier 31 and estimated buyer frontier 55 overlap. If there is no overlap, the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms is within a threshold distance from the seller's region of acceptable terms wherever terms represented by seller frontier 31 are closest to terms represented by estimated buyer frontier 55.
[0020] Given the offer history and the seller region of acceptable terms represented in Figure 5, negotiation system 21 will make a next offer from offer terms within oval 56 where the distance between the buyer's estimated region of acceptable terms and the seller's region of acceptable terms is at a minimum value or within another threshold value. For example, offer system 21 will offer to sell 7 products at a price per product of $6 and/or will offer to sell 8 products at a price per product of $6.
[0021] Figure 6 is a flowchart illustrating a negotiation conducted by negotiation system 21 . In a block 61 , negotiation system 20 makes an offer containing values for terms that are within the seller region of acceptable terms (SRAT) for the products. In a block 62, negotiation system 21 waits for a response.
[0022] Once a response is received, in a block 63, negotiation system 21 checks whether the offer has been accepted. If not, in a block 64, negotiation system 21 checks whether a counter-offer given by the buyer contains values for terms within the seller region of acceptable terms.
[0023] If in block 64 the counter-offer does not contain values for terms within the seller region of acceptable terms, in a block 65 negotiation system 21 utilizes change detector 25 and distance estimator 24 to prepare a new offer. Particularly, change detector 25 and distance estimator 24 are used, as described above, to estimate a buyer region of acceptable terms. Negotiation system 21 then can determine offer terms that are within a threshold distance— for example, they are at a minimum distance— between the seller region of acceptable terms and the estimated seller region of acceptable terms. The threshold distance can encompass offer terms where the seller region of acceptable terms and the estimated seller region of acceptable terms overlap. The new offer contains values for terms within the seller region of acceptable terms that are within a threshold distance from the estimated seller region of acceptable terms. After making the new offer, negotiation system 21 returns to block 62 to way for a response.
[0024] When in block 63 negotiation system 21 recognizes that the latest offer has been accepted, in a block 67 the negotiation is completed.
[0025] When in block 64 negotiation system 21 recognizes that counter-offer contains a combination of values for terms that is within the seller region of acceptable terms, in a block 66 negotiation system 21 accepts the counter-offer and in block 67 the negotiation is completed.
[0026] In the examples given above, the automated negotiation is performed on behalf of a seller where the seller's utility function is known and a buyer's utility function is estimated based on the buyer's offer history and in some cases others buyer's offer history. The automated negotiation also can be performed on behalf of a buyer where the buyer's utility function is known, and a seller's utility function is estimated based on the seller's offer history. In this case, a new offer will contain values for terms within the buyer's region of acceptable terms defined by the buyer's utility function within a threshold distance from an estimated seller's region of acceptable terms.
[0027] Additionally, in the examples above, the automated negotiation was illustrated in the negotiation of an agreement to purchase a product, such as a good or service. However, the automated negotiation can be performed in any type of agreement where a first party and a second party are negotiating terms.
[0028] Also, in the examples above, automated negotiation was illustrated using utility functions based on consideration of two terms. However, the automated negotiation can also use utility functions based on consideration of one, three, four or more terms.
[0029] The methods, techniques, systems, and apparatuses described herein may be implemented in digital electronic circuitry or computer hardware, for example, by executing instructions stored in computer-readable storage media.
[0030] Apparatuses implementing these techniques may include appropriate input and output devices, a computer processor, and/or a tangible computer- readable storage medium storing instructions for execution by a processor.
[0031] A process implementing techniques disclosed herein may be performed by a processor executing instructions stored on a tangible computer- readable storage medium for performing desired functions by operating on input data and generating appropriate output. Suitable processors include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors. Suitable computer-readable storage devices for storing executable instructions include all forms of non-volatile memory, including, by way of example, semiconductor memory devices, such as Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EPROM), Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory
(EEPROM), and flash memory devices; magnetic disks such as fixed, floppy, and removable disks; other magnetic media including tape; and optical media such as Compact Discs (CDs) or Digital Video Disks (DVDs). Any of the foregoing may be supplemented by, or incorporated in, specially designed application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs).
[0032] Although the operations of the disclosed techniques may be described herein as being performed in a certain order, in some
implementations, individual operations may be rearranged in a different order and/or eliminated and the desired results still may be achieved. Similarly, components in the disclosed systems may be combined in a different manner and/or replaced or supplemented by other components and the desired results still may be achieved.

Claims

CLAIMS We Claim:
1 . A negotiation system (21 ) used to provide automated negotiation, the negotiation system (21 ) conducting the negotiation on behalf of a first party, the negotiation system (21 ) comprising:
a change detector (25) that analyzes a plurality of offers (15) from a second party to detect values for terms that indicate a change in strategy used by the second party when making the plurality of offers (15); and,
a distance estimator (24) that estimates, based on changes in offer strategy detected by the change detector (25), a region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party and provides terms for a new offer (14) from the first party to the second party, the terms of the new offer (14) being within a region (32) of acceptable terms of the first party within a threshold distance from the estimated region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party.
2. A negotiation system (21 ) as in claim 1 wherein the region (32) of acceptable terms for the first party defines which combination of terms will be acceptable to the first party.
3. A negotiation system (21 ) as in claim 1 wherein the negotiation is for the purchase of a good or a service.
4. A negotiation system (21 ) as in claim 1 wherein the change detector (25) comprises:
a frequency estimator (26) that detects differences between term values for offers (15) from the second party; and,
a path partitioner (27) that detects where there occurs a change in offer strategy used by the second party when making the plurality of offers (15).
5. A negotiation system (21 ) as in claim 1 wherein terms for the new offer (14) include at least one of the following:
a value for price per product; a value for delivery time;
a value for number of products.
6. A negotiation system (21 ) as in claim 1 wherein within the threshold distance occurs where there is a minimum distance between the region (32) of acceptable terms of the first party and the estimated region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party.
7. A negotiation system (21 ) as in claim 1 wherein the first party is a seller and the second party is a buyer.
8. A computer implemented method for negotiating an agreement comprising:
determining a region (32) of acceptable terms for a first party;
analyzing a plurality of offers (15) from a second party to detect values for terms that indicate a change in strategy used by the second party when making the plurality of offers (15);
estimating a region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party based on detected values for terms that indicate a change in strategy; and,
providing terms for a new offer (14) from a first party to the second party, the terms of the new offer (14) being within the region (32) of acceptable terms for the first party within a threshold distance from the estimated region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party.
9. A computer implemented method as in claim 8 wherein determining a region (32) of acceptable terms for the first party includes defining which combination of terms will be acceptable to the first party.
10. A computer implemented method as in claim 8 wherein estimating a region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party includes estimating which combination of terms will be acceptable to the second party.
1 1 . A computer implemented method as in claim 8 wherein values for terms that indicate a change in strategy are detected by partitioning a sequence of offers into segments based on entropy cost, where the entropy cost includes a cost that monotonically increases with a number of segments.
12. A computer implemented method as in claim 8 wherein values for terms that indicate a change in strategy are detected by partitioning offer paths (51 ,52,53) based on step frequencies.
13. Tangible computer readable medium having embodied thereon a computer program for instructing a computer to perform a method for
negotiating an agreement comprising:
analyzing a plurality of offers (15) from a second party to detect values for terms that indicate a change in strategy used by the second party when making the plurality of offers (15);
estimating a region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party based on detected values for terms that indicate a change in strategy; and,
providing terms for a new offer (14) from a first party to the second party, the terms of the new offer (14) being within a region (32) of acceptable terms for the first party within a threshold distance from the estimated region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party.
14. Tangible computer readable medium as in claim 13 wherein estimating a region (57) of acceptable terms for the second party includes estimating which combination of terms will be acceptable to the second party.
15. Tangible computer readable medium as in claim 13 wherein values for terms that indicate a change in strategy are detected by partitioning offer paths (51 ,52,53) based on step frequencies.
PCT/US2010/052089 2010-10-08 2010-10-08 Automated negotiation WO2012047237A1 (en)

Priority Applications (3)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2010/052089 WO2012047237A1 (en) 2010-10-08 2010-10-08 Automated negotiation
US13/877,395 US20130191238A1 (en) 2010-10-08 2010-10-08 Automated negotiation
EP10858256.0A EP2625658A4 (en) 2010-10-08 2010-10-08 Automated negotiation

Applications Claiming Priority (1)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
PCT/US2010/052089 WO2012047237A1 (en) 2010-10-08 2010-10-08 Automated negotiation

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2012047237A1 true WO2012047237A1 (en) 2012-04-12

Family

ID=45928019

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2010/052089 WO2012047237A1 (en) 2010-10-08 2010-10-08 Automated negotiation

Country Status (3)

Country Link
US (1) US20130191238A1 (en)
EP (1) EP2625658A4 (en)
WO (1) WO2012047237A1 (en)

Families Citing this family (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US11526955B2 (en) * 2017-05-30 2022-12-13 Entersekt International Limited Protocol-based system and method for establishing a multi-party contract
US11055383B2 (en) * 2017-11-08 2021-07-06 Coupa Software Incorporated Automatically identifying risk in contract negotiations using graphical time curves of contract history and divergence
US20200005395A1 (en) * 2018-07-02 2020-01-02 Acertas, LLC Systems and methods for predicting paths for multi-party situations
US12086895B2 (en) 2021-12-21 2024-09-10 Nec Corporation Automated negotiation agent adaptation

Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
KR20060107978A (en) * 2006-09-26 2006-10-16 장준현 Method for electronic business transaction thru individual price negotiation for each nominated parties
US20090216655A1 (en) * 2008-12-09 2009-08-27 Xuan Thanh Nguyen Method of auction - Motion Reverse Auction
JP2009217346A (en) * 2008-03-07 2009-09-24 Nec Corp Price negotiation system and price negotiation method
US20100241575A1 (en) * 2007-03-09 2010-09-23 Mike Cotton Apparatus and method for online negotiation

Family Cites Families (47)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
GB9027249D0 (en) * 1990-12-17 1991-02-06 Reuters Ltd Offer matching system
US5504837A (en) * 1993-05-10 1996-04-02 Bell Communications Research, Inc. Method for resolving conflicts among distributed entities through the generation of counter proposals by transversing a goal hierarchy with acceptable, unacceptable, and indeterminate nodes
US5794207A (en) * 1996-09-04 1998-08-11 Walker Asset Management Limited Partnership Method and apparatus for a cryptographically assisted commercial network system designed to facilitate buyer-driven conditional purchase offers
US6401080B1 (en) * 1997-03-21 2002-06-04 International Business Machines Corporation Intelligent agent with negotiation capability and method of negotiation therewith
US6338050B1 (en) * 1998-11-16 2002-01-08 Trade Access, Inc. System and method for providing and updating user supplied context for a negotiations system
US6598026B1 (en) * 1999-01-25 2003-07-22 Nextag.Com, Inc. Methods and apparatus for brokering transactions
US20020035537A1 (en) * 1999-01-26 2002-03-21 Waller Matthew A. Method for economic bidding between retailers and suppliers of goods in branded, replenished categories
US6778968B1 (en) * 1999-03-17 2004-08-17 Vialogy Corp. Method and system for facilitating opportunistic transactions using auto-probes
US7756772B1 (en) * 1999-08-31 2010-07-13 Dealigence Inc. System and method for automated contract formation
US7577582B1 (en) * 1999-09-21 2009-08-18 Nextag, Inc. Methods and apparatus for facilitating transactions
US7349879B2 (en) * 1999-12-06 2008-03-25 Alsberg Peter A Methods and systems for market clearance
US20010025268A1 (en) * 2000-01-11 2001-09-27 Hnat Jeffrey W. Method for brokering freight transportation routes and warehousing space
US7228291B2 (en) * 2000-03-07 2007-06-05 International Business Machines Corporation Automated trust negotiation
JP2001306838A (en) * 2000-04-17 2001-11-02 Nec Corp Network transaction method, method and system for data processing, terminal equipment, and information storage medium
US20010049651A1 (en) * 2000-04-28 2001-12-06 Selleck Mark N. Global trading system and method
US7340408B1 (en) * 2000-06-13 2008-03-04 Verizon Laboratories Inc. Method for evaluating customer valve to guide loyalty and retention programs
US7146343B2 (en) * 2000-07-05 2006-12-05 J. J. Donahue & Company Method and apparatus for negotiating a contract over a computer network
US20020065769A1 (en) * 2000-11-30 2002-05-30 Roberto Irribarren Method and apparatus for processing unmet demand
US7523060B1 (en) * 2000-12-20 2009-04-21 I2 Technologies Us, Inc. System and method for negotiating according to improved matching criteria
AU2002255806A1 (en) * 2001-03-20 2002-10-08 Dealigence Inc. Negotiating platform
US20020143583A1 (en) * 2001-03-30 2002-10-03 Reader Robert A. Online reinsurance renewal method
AU2002251274A1 (en) * 2001-04-11 2002-10-28 Hewlett-Packard Company Knowledge acquisition apparatus and method
US20040117201A1 (en) * 2001-04-11 2004-06-17 Preist Christopher William Mapping apparatus and methods
US20040148310A1 (en) * 2001-04-11 2004-07-29 Preist Chirstopher William Utility scoring method and apparatus
US20030014325A1 (en) * 2001-06-27 2003-01-16 Peter Biffar Automatic pricing and negotiation system
US20030004898A1 (en) * 2001-07-02 2003-01-02 International Business Machines Corporation Method and apparatus for privacy negotiation
US20050155042A1 (en) * 2001-07-02 2005-07-14 Michael Kolb Component-based system for distributed applications
US7203662B2 (en) * 2001-07-25 2007-04-10 International Business Machines Corporation Apparatus, system and method for automatically making operational selling decisions
US20030023537A1 (en) * 2001-07-26 2003-01-30 Joshi Rohit Ricky System and method for negotiating prices in an automated auction forum
GB2378282A (en) * 2001-07-31 2003-02-05 Hewlett Packard Co Automated multivariate negotiation using convertable undeniable signatures
GB2382178A (en) * 2001-11-20 2003-05-21 Hewlett Packard Co an automated negotiation agent and method of evaluating risk and trust in negotiation of contracts by electronic means
US20030200150A1 (en) * 2002-04-17 2003-10-23 Elnnovate, Inc. Systems and methods for facilitating negotiations for supply chain control
US20040073502A1 (en) * 2002-10-09 2004-04-15 Aseem Agrawal Multi-party negotiations with multiple attributes
AU2003900153A0 (en) * 2003-01-15 2003-01-30 Super Internet Site System Pty Ltd Spatial marketing system
US20040172371A1 (en) * 2003-02-28 2004-09-02 Fujitsu Limited Automated negotiation
US20040243495A1 (en) * 2003-06-02 2004-12-02 Karp Alan H. Automated negotiation
US20040254847A1 (en) * 2003-06-13 2004-12-16 Preist Christopher William Automated negotiation with multiple parties
US20040254846A1 (en) * 2003-06-13 2004-12-16 Byde Andrew Robert Options for negotiation with multiple sellers
US20040254875A1 (en) * 2003-06-13 2004-12-16 Byde Andrew Robert Conduct of automated negotiation
US20050010457A1 (en) * 2003-07-10 2005-01-13 Ettinger Richard W. Automated offer-based negotiation system and method
US20060173773A1 (en) * 2003-07-10 2006-08-03 Ettinger Richard W Jr Systems and methods for automated offer-based negotiation
US20050203785A1 (en) * 2004-03-10 2005-09-15 Kixmiller Robert V. Automated dispute settlement method
JP2005352702A (en) * 2004-06-09 2005-12-22 Fujitsu Ltd Procurement negotiation program and negotiation-proxy program
US20060095372A1 (en) * 2004-11-01 2006-05-04 Sap Aktiengesellschaft System and method for management and verification of invoices
WO2008066212A1 (en) * 2006-11-29 2008-06-05 Korea Institute Of Science And Technology Electronic commerce system and recording medium for storing program of mobile terminals using personal area network
US20090099970A1 (en) * 2007-10-12 2009-04-16 Thiessen Ernest M Multivariate Blind Bidding Negotiation Support System Rewarding Smallest Last Session Move
US9031860B2 (en) * 2009-10-09 2015-05-12 Visa U.S.A. Inc. Systems and methods to aggregate demand

Patent Citations (4)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
KR20060107978A (en) * 2006-09-26 2006-10-16 장준현 Method for electronic business transaction thru individual price negotiation for each nominated parties
US20100241575A1 (en) * 2007-03-09 2010-09-23 Mike Cotton Apparatus and method for online negotiation
JP2009217346A (en) * 2008-03-07 2009-09-24 Nec Corp Price negotiation system and price negotiation method
US20090216655A1 (en) * 2008-12-09 2009-08-27 Xuan Thanh Nguyen Method of auction - Motion Reverse Auction

Non-Patent Citations (1)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Title
See also references of EP2625658A4 *

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
US20130191238A1 (en) 2013-07-25
EP2625658A1 (en) 2013-08-14
EP2625658A4 (en) 2014-12-03

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Hajiaghayi et al. Automated online mechanism design and prophet inequalities
CN109829116B (en) Content recommendation method and device, server and computer readable storage medium
US11263659B2 (en) Dynamic promotion analytics
US20120290485A1 (en) Automated negotiation
WO2019085394A1 (en) Present giving scheme selection method and terminal
EP3279806A1 (en) Data processing method and apparatus
CN108961073B (en) Recommendation method of insurance products, storage medium and server
US20130191238A1 (en) Automated negotiation
KR20180063574A (en) Method, Apparatus and Computer-Readable Medium for determining sales price of used car for dealing a used car on P2P using machine learning
CN110210905A (en) Feature similarity calculation method and device, electronic equipment and computer storage medium
CN110009365A (en) User group's detection method, device and the equipment of improper transfer electronic asset
US11017452B2 (en) Concerted learning and multi-instance sequential prediction tree
CN111681099A (en) Product information pushing method and device, computer equipment and readable storage medium
CN106326228A (en) Method and device for evaluating interest tendency of user
CN110020135B (en) Demand determination method, resource recommendation method and related device
US20140074646A1 (en) Automated Negotiation
US20140025527A1 (en) Automated Negotiation
Chee et al. Data Analytics Approach for Short-term Sales Forecasts Using Limited Information in E-commerce Marketplace
EP4053750A1 (en) Method and system for time series data prediction based on seasonal lags
US20090024446A1 (en) Providing a model of a life cycle of an enterprise offering
CN108198058A (en) Method of Commodity Recommendation and device
CN113781138B (en) Information pushing method, device and storage medium
CN111652674B (en) Resource recommendation method and device
CN105528379B (en) Resource recommendation method and device
US10990995B2 (en) System for cognitive assessment of transactions

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 10858256

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 13877395

Country of ref document: US

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

WWE Wipo information: entry into national phase

Ref document number: 2010858256

Country of ref document: EP