Results

Michael Filzmoser
Additional contact information
Michael Filzmoser: Vienna University of Technology

Chapter Chapter 6 in Simulation of Automated Negotiation, 2010, pp 133-172 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract Table 6.1 and Figure 6.1 provide descriptive statistics for the six outcome dimensions discussed in the previous chapter, note that the proportion of agreements for all simulation runs was 63.41% and the proportion of Pareto-optimal agreements was 32.80%. Interestingly automated negotiation achieves higher utility to the seller party than to the buyer party though neither the protocol nor the agent distinguish between parties. This phenomenon is not only found for the overall results but consistently in all treatments and all analyses. The better performance of automated negotiation for the seller party is even more puzzling if one compares the overall results to the negotiation experiments, where no such differences in individual utility of the two parties exist and is discussed in detail in Section 6.6.2.

Date: 2010
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-7091-0133-9_6

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783709101339

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7091-0133-9_6

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().