Ensuring the trustworthiness of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence is an important interdisciplinary endeavour. In this position paper, we argue that this endeavour will benefit from technical advancements in capturing various forms of responsibility, and we present a comprehensive research agenda to achieve this. In particular, we argue that ensuring the reliability of autonomous system can take advantage of technical approaches for quantifying degrees of responsibility and for coordinating tasks based on that. Moreover, we deem that, in certifying the legality of an AI system, formal and computationally implementable notions of responsibility, blame, accountability, and liability are applicable for addressing potential responsibility gaps (i.e. situations in which a group is responsible, but individuals’ responsibility may be unclear). This is a call to enable AI systems themselves, as well as those involved in the design, monitoring, and governance of AI systems, to represent and reason about who can be seen as responsible in prospect (e.g. for completing a task in future) and who can be seen as responsible retrospectively (e.g. for a failure that has already occurred). To that end, in this work, we show that across all stages of the design, development, and deployment of trustworthy autonomous systems (TAS), responsibility reasoning should play a key role. This position paper is the first step towards establishing a road map and research agenda on how the notion of responsibility can provide novel solution concepts for ensuring the reliability and legality of TAS and, as a result, enables an effective embedding of AI technologies into society.@en

We describe the strategy used by our agent, IAMhaggler2011, which finished in third place in the 2011 Automated Negotiating Agent Competition. A key feature of this agent is the way in which it models the likely negotiation behaviour of its opponent. Specifically, it first uses a Gaussian process regression technique to estimate the future concession of its negotiation opponent. Its concession is then set as a best response to this prediction.@en

In this paper we present a novel option pricing mechanism for reducing the exposure problem encountered by bidders with complementary valuations when participating in sequential, second-price auction markets. Existing option pricing models have two main drawbacks: they either apply a fixed exercise price, which may deter bidders with low valuations, thereby decreasing allocative efficiency, or options are offered for free, in which case bidders are less likely to exercise them, thereby reducing seller revenues. Our novel mechanism with flexibly priced options addresses these problems by calculating the exercise price as well as the option price based on the bids in an auction. For this novel setting we derive the optimal strategies for a bidding agent with complementary preferences. Furthermore, to compare our approach to existing ones, we derive, for the first time, the bidding strategies for a fixed price mechanism, in which exercise prices for options are fixed by the seller. Finally, we use these strategies to empirically evaluate the proposed option mechanism and compare it to existing ones, both in terms of the seller revenue and the social welfare. We show that our new mechanism achieves higher market efficiency, while still ensuring higher revenues for the seller than direct sale auctions (without options).@en

In this paper we present a novel option pricing mechanism for reducing the exposure problem encountered by bidders with complementary valuations when participating in sequential, second-price auction markets. Existing option pricing models have two main drawbacks: they either apply a fixed exercise price, which may deter bidders with low valuations, thereby decreasing allocative efficiency, or options are offered for free, in which case bidders are less likely to exercise them, thereby reducing seller revenues. Our novel mechanism with flexibly priced options addresses these problems by calculating the exercise price as well as the option price based on the bids in an auction. For this novel setting we derive the optimal strategies for a bidding agent with complementary preferences. Furthermore, to compare our approach to existing ones, we derive, for the first time, the bidding strategies for a fixed price mechanism, in which exercise prices for options are fixed by the seller. Finally, we use these strategies to empirically evaluate the proposed option mechanism and compare it to existing ones, both in terms of the seller revenue and the social welfare. We show that our new mechanism achieves higher market efficiency, while still ensuring higher revenues for the seller than direct sale auctions (without options).@en

We describe the strategy used by our agent, IAMhaggler, which finished in third place in the 2010 Automated Negotiating Agent Competition. It uses a concession strategy to determine the utility level at which to make offers. This concession strategy uses a principled approach which considers the offers made by the opponent. It then uses a Pareto-search algorithm combined with Bayesian learning in order to generate a multi-issue offer with a specific utility as given by its concession strategy.@en

We describe the strategy used by our agent, IAMhaggler, which finished in third place in the 2010 Automated Negotiating Agent Competition. It uses a concession strategy to determine the utility level at which to make offers. This concession strategy uses a principled approach which considers the offers made by the opponent. It then uses a Pareto-search algorithm combined with Bayesian learning in order to generate a multi-issue offer with a specific utility as given by its concession strategy.@en

We describe the strategy used by our agent, IAMhaggler, which finished in third place in the 2010 Automated Negotiating Agent Competition. It uses a concession strategy to determine the utility level at which to make offers. This concession strategy uses a principled approach which considers the offers made by the opponent. It then uses a Pareto-search algorithm combined with Bayesian learning in order to generate a multi-issue offer with a specific utility as given by its concession strategy.@en

We describe the strategy used by our agent, IAMhaggler, which finished in third place in the 2010 Automated Negotiating Agent Competition. It uses a concession strategy to determine the utility level at which to make offers. This concession strategy uses a principled approach which considers the offers made by the opponent. It then uses a Pareto-search algorithm combined with Bayesian learning in order to generate a multi-issue offer with a specific utility as given by its concession strategy.@en

Conflict resolution is essential to obtain cooperation in many scenarios such as politics and business, as well as our day to day life. The importance of conflict resolution has driven research in many fields like anthropology, social science, psychology, mathematics, biology and, more recently, in artificial intelligence. Computer science and artificial intelligence have, in turn, been inspired by theories and techniques from these disciplines, which has led to a variety of computational models and approaches, such as automated negotiation, group decision making, argumentation, preference aggregation, and human-machine interaction. To bring together the different research strands and disciplines in conflict resolution, the Workshop on Conflict Resolution in Decision Making (COREDEMA) was organized. This special issue benefited from the workshop series, and consists of significantly extended and revised selected papers from the ECAI 2016 COREDEMA workshop, as well as completely new contributions.@en

To develop and effectively deploy Trustworthy Autonomous Systems (TAS), we face various social, technological, legal, and ethical challenges in which different notions of responsibility can play a key role. In this work, we elaborate on these challenges, discuss research gaps, and show how the multidimensional notion of responsibility can play a role to bridge them. We argue that TAS requires operational tools to represent and reason about responsibilities of humans as well as AI agents. We review major challenges to which responsibility reasoning can contribute, highlight open research problems, and argue for the application of multiagent responsibility models in a variety of TAS domains.@en

We introduce a novel online mechanism that schedules the allocation of an expiring and continuously-produced resource to self-interested agents with private preferences. A key application of our mechanism is the charging of pure electric vehicles, where owners arrive dynamically over time, and each owner requires a minimum amount of charge by its departure to complete its next trip. To truthfully elicit the agents' preferences in this setting, we introduce the new concept of pre-commitment: Whenever an agent is selected, our mechanism pre-commits to charging the vehicle by its reported departure time, but maintains flexibility about when the charging takes place and at what rate. Furthermore, to make effective allocation decisions we use a model-based approach by modifying Consensus, a well-known online optimisation algorithm. We show that our pre-commitment mechanism with modified Consensus incentivises truthful reporting. Furthermore, through simulations based on real-world data, we show empirically that the average utility achieved by our mechanism is 93% or more of the offline optimal.@en

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to place a considerable strain on local electricity distribution networks, requiring charging to be coordinated in order to accommodate capacity constraints. We design a novel online auction protocol for this problem, wherein vehicle owners use agents to bid for power and also state time windows in which a vehicle is available for charging. This is a multi-dimensional mechanism design domain, with owners having non-increasing marginal valuations for each subsequent unit of electricity. In our design, we couple a greedy allocation algorithm with the occasional "burning" of allocated power, leaving it unallocated, in order to adjust an allocation and achieve monotonicity and thus truthfulness. We consider two variations: burning at each time step or on-departure. Both mechanisms are evaluated in depth, using data from a real-world trial of electric vehicles in the UK to simulate system dynamics and valuations. The mechanisms provide higher allocative efficiency than a fixed price system, are almost competitive with a standard scheduling heuristic which assumes non-strategic agents, and can sustain a substantially larger number of vehicles at the same per-owner fuel cost saving than a simple random scheme.@en

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to place a considerable strain on local electricity distribution networks, requiring charging to be coordinated in order to accommodate capacity constraints. We design a novel online auction protocol for this problem, wherein vehicle owners use agents to bid for power and also state time windows in which a vehicle is available for charging. This is a multi-dimensional mechanism design domain, with owners having non-increasing marginal valuations for each subsequent unit of electricity. In our design, we couple a greedy allocation algorithm with the occasional "burning" of allocated power, leaving it unallocated, in order to adjust an allocation and achieve monotonicity and thus truthfulness. We consider two variations: burning at each time step or on-departure. Both mechanisms are evaluated in depth, using data from a real-world trial of electric vehicles in the UK to simulate system dynamics and valuations. The mechanisms provide higher allocative efficiency than a fixed price system, are almost competitive with a standard scheduling heuristic which assumes non-strategic agents, and can sustain a substantially larger number of vehicles at the same per-owner fuel cost saving than a simple random scheme.@en

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to place a considerable strain on local electricity distribution networks, requiring charging to be coordinated in order to accommodate capacity constraints. We design a novel online auction protocol for this problem, wherein vehicle owners use agents to bid for power and also state time windows in which a vehicle is available for charging. This is a multi-dimensional mechanism design domain, with owners having non-increasing marginal valuations for each subsequent unit of electricity. In our design, we couple a greedy allocation algorithm with the occasional "burning" of allocated power, leaving it unallocated, in order to adjust an allocation and achieve monotonicity and thus truthfulness. We consider two variations: burning at each time step or on-departure. Both mechanisms are evaluated in depth, using data from a real-world trial of electric vehicles in the UK to simulate system dynamics and valuations. The mechanisms provide higher allocative efficiency than a fixed price system, are almost competitive with a standard scheduling heuristic which assumes non-strategic agents, and can sustain a substantially larger number of vehicles at the same per-owner fuel cost saving than a simple random scheme.@en

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to place a considerable strain on local electricity distribution networks, requiring charging to be coordinated in order to accommodate capacity constraints. We design a novel online auction protocol for this problem, wherein vehicle owners use agents to bid for power and also state time windows in which a vehicle is available for charging. This is a multi-dimensional mechanism design domain, with owners having non-increasing marginal valuations for each subsequent unit of electricity. In our design, we couple a greedy allocation algorithm with the occasional "burning" of allocated power, leaving it unallocated, in order to adjust an allocation and achieve monotonicity and thus truthfulness. We consider two variations: burning at each time step or on-departure. Both mechanisms are evaluated in depth, using data from a real-world trial of electric vehicles in the UK to simulate system dynamics and valuations. The mechanisms provide higher allocative efficiency than a fixed price system, are almost competitive with a standard scheduling heuristic which assumes non-strategic agents, and can sustain a substantially larger number of vehicles at the same per-owner fuel cost saving than a simple random scheme.@en

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to place a considerable strain on local electricity distribution networks, requiring charging to be coordinated in order to accommodate capacity constraints. We design a novel online auction protocol for this problem, wherein vehicle owners use agents to bid for power and also state time windows in which a vehicle is available for charging. This is a multi-dimensional mechanism design domain, with owners having non-increasing marginal valuations for each subsequent unit of electricity. In our design, we couple a greedy allocation algorithm with the occasional "burning" of allocated power, leaving it unallocated, in order to adjust an allocation and achieve monotonicity and thus truthfulness. We consider two variations: burning at each time step or on-departure. Both mechanisms are evaluated in depth, using data from a real-world trial of electric vehicles in the UK to simulate system dynamics and valuations. The mechanisms provide higher allocative efficiency than a fixed price system, are almost competitive with a standard scheduling heuristic which assumes non-strategic agents, and can sustain a substantially larger number of vehicles at the same per-owner fuel cost saving than a simple random scheme.@en

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are expected to place a considerable strain on local electricity distribution networks, requiring charging to be coordinated in order to accommodate capacity constraints. We design a novel online auction protocol for this problem, wherein vehicle owners use agents to bid for power and also state time windows in which a vehicle is available for charging. This is a multi-dimensional mechanism design domain, with owners having non-increasing marginal valuations for each subsequent unit of electricity. In our design, we couple a greedy allocation algorithm with the occasional "burning" of allocated power, leaving it unallocated, in order to adjust an allocation and achieve monotonicity and thus truthfulness. We consider two variations: burning at each time step or on-departure. Both mechanisms are evaluated in depth, using data from a real-world trial of electric vehicles in the UK to simulate system dynamics and valuations. The mechanisms provide higher allocative efficiency than a fixed price system, are almost competitive with a standard scheduling heuristic which assumes non-strategic agents, and can sustain a substantially larger number of vehicles at the same per-owner fuel cost saving than a simple random scheme.@en

The third Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2012) was held at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2012, Valencia, Spain). ANAC is an international competition that aims to encourage research into bilateral, multi-issue negotiation, by providing a platform in which strategies developed independently by different research teams can be tried and compared against each other, in a real-time competition. In the 2012 edition, we received 17 entries from 9 different universities worldwide, out of which 8 were selected for the final round. This chapter aims to provide a broad description of the competition set-up (especially highlighting the changes from previous editions), the preference domains and the strategies submitted, as well as the results from both the qualifying and final rounds.@en

The third Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC 2012) was held at the 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2012, Valencia, Spain). ANAC is an international competition that aims to encourage research into bilateral, multi-issue negotiation, by providing a platform in which strategies developed independently by different research teams can be tried and compared against each other, in a real-time competition. In the 2012 edition, we received 17 entries from 9 different universities worldwide, out of which 8 were selected for the final round. This chapter aims to provide a broad description of the competition set-up (especially highlighting the changes from previous editions), the preference domains and the strategies submitted, as well as the results from both the qualifying and final rounds.@en

With the growing popularity of electric vehicles (EVs), the number of public charging stations is increasing rapidly, allowing drivers to charge their cars while parked away from home or en-route to their destination. However, as a full charge can take a significant amount of time, drivers may face queues and uncertainty over availability of charging facilities at different stations and times. In this paper, we address this problem by proposing a novel, two-sided market for advance reservations, in which agents, representing EV owners, report their preferences for time slots and charging locations, while charging stations report their availability and costs. In our model, both parties are rational, profit-maximising entities, and buyers enter the market dynamically over time. Given this, we apply techniques from online mechanism design to develop a pricing mechanism which is truthful on the buyer side (i.e., drivers have no incentive to misreport their preferences or to delay their reservations). For the seller side, we adapt three well-known pricing mechanisms and compare them both theoretically and empirically. Using realistic simulations, we demonstrate that two of our proposed mechanisms consistently achieve a high efficiency (90-95% of optimal), while offering a trade-off between stability and budget balance. Surprisingly, the third mechanism, a common payment mechanism that is truthful in simpler settings, achieves a significantly lower efficiency and runs a high deficit.@en