Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach to Concurrent Bilateral Negotiation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2001.11785 v2 pith:ZCSVVM4F submitted 2020-01-31 cs.MA cs.AI

A Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach to Concurrent Bilateral Negotiation

classification cs.MA cs.AI
keywords concurrentnegotiationbilateraldeeplearningnegotiationsreinforcementagent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a novel negotiation model that allows an agent to learn how to negotiate during concurrent bilateral negotiations in unknown and dynamic e-markets. The agent uses an actor-critic architecture with model-free reinforcement learning to learn a strategy expressed as a deep neural network. We pre-train the strategy by supervision from synthetic market data, thereby decreasing the exploration time required for learning during negotiation. As a result, we can build automated agents for concurrent negotiations that can adapt to different e-market settings without the need to be pre-programmed. Our experimental evaluation shows that our deep reinforcement learning-based agents outperform two existing well-known negotiation strategies in one-to-many concurrent bilateral negotiations for a range of e-market settings.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. The Foreign Policy AI Evaluation Gap

    cs.CY 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Public technical AI governance almost never evaluates real foreign-policy AI workflows; the paper maps that gap and proposes task-scoped, human-recombined evaluation instead of model leaderboards.